feminist theory view on education

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Feminist theory and its use in qualitative research in education.

• Emily Freeman Emily Freeman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1193
• Published online: 28 August 2019

Feminist theory rose in prominence in educational research during the 1980s and experienced a resurgence in popularity during the late 1990s−2010s. Standpoint epistemologies, intersectionality, and feminist poststructuralism are the most prevalent theories, but feminist researchers often work across feminist theoretical thought. Feminist qualitative research in education encompasses a myriad of methods and methodologies, but projects share a commitment to feminist ethics and theories. Among the commitments are the understanding that knowledge is situated in the subjectivities and lived experiences of both researcher and participants and research is deeply reflexive. Feminist theory informs both research questions and the methodology of a project in addition to serving as a foundation for analysis. The goals of feminist educational research include dismantling systems of oppression, highlighting gender-based disparities, and seeking new ways of constructing knowledge.

• feminist theories
• qualitative research
• educational research
• positionality
• methodology

Introduction

Feminist qualitative research begins with the understanding that all knowledge is situated in the bodies and subjectivities of people, particularly women and historically marginalized groups. Donna Haraway ( 1988 ) wrote,

I am arguing for politics and epistemologies of location, position, and situating, where partiality and not universality is the condition of being heard to make rational knowledge claims. These are claims on people’s lives I’m arguing for the view from a body, always a complex, contradictory, structuring, and structured body, versus the view from above, from nowhere, from simplicity. Only the god trick is forbidden. . . . Feminism is about a critical vision consequent upon a critical positioning in unhomogeneous gendered social space. (p. 589)

By arguing that “politics and epistemologies” are always interpretive and partial, Haraway offered feminist qualitative researchers in education a way to understand all research as potentially political and always interpretive and partial. Because all humans bring their own histories, biases, and subjectivities with them to a research space or project, it is naïve to think that the written product of research could ever be considered neutral, but what does research with a strong commitment to feminism look like in the context of education?

Writing specifically about the ways researchers of both genders can use feminist ethnographic methods while conducting research on schools and schooling, Levinson ( 1998 ) stated, “I define feminist ethnography as intensive qualitative research, aimed toward the description and analysis of the gendered construction and representation of experience, which is informed by a political and intellectual commitment to the empowerment of women and the creation of more equitable arrangements between and among specific, culturally defined genders” (p. 339). The core of Levinson’s definition is helpful for understanding the ways that feminist educational anthropologists engage with schools as gendered and political constructs and the larger questions of feminist qualitative research in education. His message also extends to other forms of feminist qualitative research. By focusing on description, analysis, and representation of gendered constructs, educational researchers can move beyond simple binary analyses to more nuanced understandings of the myriad ways gender operates within educational contexts.

Feminist qualitative research spans the range of qualitative methodologies, but much early research emerged out of the feminist postmodern turn in anthropology (Behar & Gordon, 1995 ), which was a response to male anthropologists who ignored the gendered implications of ethnographic research (e.g., Clifford & Marcus, 1986 ). Historically, most of the work on feminist education was conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, with a resurgence in the late 2010s (Culley & Portuges, 1985 ; DuBois, Kelly, Kennedy, Korsmeyer, & Robinson, 1985 ; Gottesman, 2016 ; Maher & Tetreault, 1994 ; Thayer-Bacon, Stone, & Sprecher, 2013 ). Within this body of research, the majority focuses on higher education (Coffey & Delamont, 2000 ; Digiovanni & Liston, 2005 ; Diller, Houston, Morgan, & Ayim, 1996 ; Gabriel & Smithson, 1990 ; Mayberry & Rose, 1999 ). Even leading journals, such as Feminist Teacher ( 1984 −present), focus mostly on the challenges of teaching about and to women in higher education, although more scholarship on P–12 education has emerged in recent issues.

There is also a large collection of work on the links between gender, achievement, and self-esteem (American Association of University Women, 1992 , 1999 ; Digiovanni & Liston, 2005 ; Gilligan, 1982 ; Hancock, 1989 ; Jackson, Paechter, & Renold, 2010 ; National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 2002 ; Orenstein, 1994 ; Pipher, 1994 ; Sadker & Sadker, 1994 ). However, just because research examines gender does not mean that it is feminist. Simply using gender as a category of analysis does not mean the research project is informed by feminist theory, ethics, or methods, but it is often a starting point for researchers who are interested in the complex ways gender is constructed and the ways it operates in education.

This article examines the histories and theories of U.S.–based feminism, the tenets of feminist qualitative research and methodologies, examples of feminist qualitative studies, and the possibilities for feminist qualitative research in education to provide feminist educational researchers context and methods for engaging in transformative and subversive research. Each section provides a brief overview of the major concepts and conversations, along with examples from educational research to highlight the ways feminist theory has informed educational scholarship. Some examples are given limited attention and serve as entry points into a more detailed analysis of a few key examples. While there is a large body of non-Western feminist theory (e.g., the works of Lila Abu-Lughod, Sara Ahmed, Raewyn Connell, Saba Mahmood, Chandra Mohanty, and Gayatri Spivak), much of the educational research using feminist theory draws on Western feminist theory. This article focuses on U.S.–based research to show the ways that the utilization of feminist theory has changed since the 1980s.

Histories, Origins, and Theories of U.S.–Based Feminism

The normative historiography of feminist theory and activism in the United States is broken into three waves. First-wave feminism (1830s−1920s) primarily focused on women’s suffrage and women’s rights to legally exist in public spaces. During this time period, there were major schisms between feminist groups concerning abolition, rights for African American women, and the erasure of marginalized voices from larger feminist debates. The second wave (1960s and 1980s) worked to extend some of the rights won during the first wave. Activists of this time period focused on women’s rights to enter the workforce, sexual harassment, educational equality, and abortion rights. During this wave, colleges and universities started creating women’s studies departments and those scholars provided much of the theoretical work that informs feminist research and activism today. While there were major feminist victories during second-wave feminism, notably Title IX and Roe v. Wade , issues concerning the marginalization of race, sexual orientation, and gender identity led many feminists of color to separate from mainstream white feminist groups. The third wave (1990s to the present) is often characterized as the intersectional wave, as some feminist groups began utilizing Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality ( 1991 ) to understand that oppression operates via multiple categories (e.g., gender, race, class, age, ability) and that intersecting oppressions lead to different lived experiences.

Historians and scholars of feminism argue that dividing feminist activism into three waves flattens and erases the major contributions of women of color and gender-nonconforming people. Thompson ( 2002 ) called this history a history of hegemonic feminism and proposed that we look at the contributions of multiracial feminism when discussing history. Her work, along with that of Allen ( 1984 ) about the indigenous roots of U.S. feminism, raised many questions about the ways that feminism operates within the public and academic spheres. For those who wish to engage in feminist research, it is vital to spend time understanding the historical, theoretical, and political ways that feminism(s) can both liberate and oppress, depending on the scholar’s understandings of, and orientations to, feminist projects.

Standpoint Epistemology

Much of the theoretical work that informs feminist qualitative research today emerged out of second-wave feminist scholarship. Standpoint epistemology, according to Harding ( 1991 , 2004 ), posits that knowledge comes from one’s particular social location, that it is subjective, and the further one is from the hegemonic norm, the clearer one can see oppression. This was a major challenge to androcentric and Enlightenment theories of knowledge because standpoint theory acknowledges that there is no universal understanding of the world. This theory aligns with the second-wave feminist slogan, “The personal is political,” and advocates for a view of knowledge that is produced from the body.

Greene ( 1994 ) wrote from a feminist postmodernist epistemology and attacked Enlightenment thinking by using standpoint theory as her starting point. Her work serves as an example of one way that educational scholars can use standpoint theory in their work. She theorized encounters with “imaginative literature” to help educators conceptualize new ways of using reading and writing in the classroom and called for teachers to think of literature as “a harbinger of the possible.” (Greene, 1994 , p. 218). Greene wrote from an explicitly feminist perspective and moved beyond simple analyses of gender to a larger critique of the ways that knowledge is constructed in classrooms.

Intersectionality

Crenshaw ( 1991 ) and Collins ( 2000 ) challenged and expanded standpoint theory to move it beyond an individual understanding of knowledge to a group-based theory of oppression. Their work, and that of other black and womanist feminists, opened up multiple spaces of possibility for feminist scholars and researchers because it challenged hegemonic feminist thought. For those interested in conducting feminist research in educational settings, their work is especially pertinent because they advocate for feminists to attend to all aspects of oppression rather than flattening them to one of simple gender-based oppression.

Haddix, McArthur, Muhammad, Price-Dennis, and Sealey-Ruiz ( 2016 ), all women-of-color feminist educators, wrote a provocateur piece in a special issue of English Education on black girls’ literacy. The four authors drew on black feminist thought and conducted a virtual kitchen-table conversation. By symbolically representing their conversations as one from the kitchen, this article pays homage to women-of-color feminism and pushes educators who read English Education to reconsider elements of their own subjectivities. Third-wave feminism and black feminism emphasize intersectionality, in that different demographic details like race, class, and gender are inextricably linked in power structures. Intersectionality is an important frame for educational research because identifying the unique experiences, realities, and narratives of those involved in educational systems can highlight the ways that power and oppression operate in society.

Feminist Poststructural Theory

Feminist poststructural theory has greatly informed many feminist projects in educational research. Deconstruction is

a critical practice that aims to ‘dismantle [ déconstruire ] the metaphysical and rhetorical structures that are at work, not in order to reject or discard them, but to reinscribe them in another way,’ (Derrida, quoted in Spivak, 1974 , p. lxxv). Thus, deconstruction is not about tearing down, but about looking at how a structure has been constructed, what holds it together, and what it produces. (St. Pierre, 2000 , p. 482)

Reality, subjectivity, knowledge, and truth are constructed through language and discourse (cultural practices, power relations, etc.), so truth is local and diverse, rather than a universal experience (St. Pierre, 2000 ). Feminist poststructuralist theory may be used to question structural inequality that is maintained in education through dominant discourses.

In Go Be a Writer! Expanding the Curricular Boundaries of Literacy Learning with Children , Kuby and Rucker ( 2016 ) explored early elementary literacy practices using poststructural and posthumanist theories. Their book drew on hours of classroom observations, student interviews and work, and their own musings on ways to de-standardize literacy instruction and curriculum. Through the process of pedagogical documentation, Kuby and Rucker drew on the works of Barad, Deleuze and Guattari, and Derrida to explore the ways they saw children engaging in what they call “literacy desiring(s).” One aim of the book is to find practical and applicable ways to “Disrupt literacy in ways that rewrite the curriculum, the interactions, and the power dynamics of the classroom even begetting a new kind of energy that spirals and bounces and explodes” (Kuby & Rucker, 2016 , p. 5). The second goal of their book is not only to understand what happened in Rucker’s classroom using the theories, but also to unbound the links between “teaching↔learning” (p. 202) and to write with the theories, rather than separating theory from the methodology and classroom enactments (p. 45) because “knowing/being/doing were not separate” (p. 28). This work engages with key tenets of feminist poststructuralist theory and adds to both the theoretical and pedagogical conversations about what counts as a literacy practice.

While the discussion in this section provides an overview of the histories and major feminist theories, it is by no means exhaustive. Scholars who wish to engage in feminist educational research need to spend time doing the work of understanding the various theories and trajectories that constitute feminist work so they are able to ground their projects and theories in a particular tradition that will inform the ethics and methods of research.

Tenets of Feminist Qualitative Research

Why engage in feminist qualitative research.

Evans and Spivak ( 2016 ) stated, “The only real and effective way you can sabotage something this way is when you are working intimately within it.” Feminist researchers are in the classroom and the academy, working intimately within curricular, pedagogical, and methodological constraints that serve neoliberal ideologies, so it is vital to better understand the ways that we can engage in affirmative sabotage to build a more just and equitable world. Spivak’s ( 2014 ) notion of affirmative sabotage has become a cornerstone for understanding feminist qualitative research and teaching. She borrowed and built on Gramsci’s role of the organic intellectual and stated that they/we need to engage in affirmative sabotage to transform the humanities.

I used the term “affirmative sabotage” to gloss on the usual meaning of sabotage: the deliberate ruining of the master’s machine from the inside. Affirmative sabotage doesn’t just ruin; the idea is of entering the discourse that you are criticizing fully, so that you can turn it around from inside. The only real and effective way you can sabotage something this way is when you are working intimately within it. (Evans & Spivak, 2016 )

While Spivak has been mostly concerned with literary education, her writings provide teachers and researchers numerous lines of inquiry into projects that can explode androcentric universal notions of knowledge and resist reproductive heteronormativity.

Spivak’s pedagogical musings center on deconstruction, primarily Derridean notions of deconstruction (Derrida, 2016 ; Jackson & Mazzei, 2012 ; Spivak, 2006 , 2009 , 2012 ) that seek to destabilize existing categories and to call into question previously unquestioned beliefs about the goals of education. Her works provide an excellent starting point for examining the links between feminism and educational research. The desire to create new worlds within classrooms, worlds that are fluid, interpretive, and inclusive in order to interrogate power structures, lies at the core of what it means to be a feminist education researcher. As researchers, we must seriously engage with feminist theory and include it in our research so that feminism is not seen as a dirty word, but as a movement/pedagogy/methodology that seeks the liberation of all (Davis, 2016 ).

Feminist research and feminist teaching are intrinsically linked. As Kerkhoff ( 2015 ) wrote, “Feminist pedagogy requires students to challenge the norms and to question whether existing practices privilege certain groups and marginalize others” (p. 444), and this is exactly what feminist educational research should do. Bailey ( 2001 ) called on teachers, particularly those who identify as feminists, to be activists, “The values of one’s teaching should not be separated sharply from the values one expresses outside the classroom, because teaching is not inherently pure or laboratory practice” (p. 126); however, we have to be careful not to glorify teachers as activists because that leads to the risk of misinterpreting actions. Bailey argued that teaching critical thinking is not enough if it is not coupled with curriculums and pedagogies that are antiheteronormative, antisexist, and antiracist. As Bailey warned, just using feminist theory or identifying as a feminist is not enough. It is very easy to use the language and theories of feminism without being actively feminist in one’s research. There are ethical and methodological issues that feminist scholars must consider when conducting research.

Feminist research requires one to discuss ethics, not as a bureaucratic move, but as a reflexive move that shows the researchers understand that, no matter how much they wish it didn’t, power always plays a role in the process. According to Davies ( 2014 ), “Ethics, as Barad defines it, is a matter of questioning what is being made to matter and how that mattering affects what it is possible to do and to think” (p. 11). In other words, ethics is what is made to matter in a particular time and place.

Davies ( 2016 ) extended her definition of ethics to the interactions one has with others.

This is not ethics as a matter of separate individuals following a set of rules. Ethical practice, as both Barad and Deleuze define it, requires thinking beyond the already known, being open in the moment of the encounter, pausing at the threshold and crossing over. Ethical practice is emergent in encounters with others, in emergent listening with others. It is a matter of questioning what is being made to matter and how that mattering affects what it is possible to do and to think. Ethics is emergent in the intra-active encounters in which knowing, being, and doing (epistemology, ontology, and ethics) are inextricably linked. (Barad, 2007 , p. 83)

The ethics of any project must be negotiated and contested before, during, and after the process of conducting research in conjunction with the participants. Feminist research is highly reflexive and should be conducted in ways that challenge power dynamics between individuals and social institutions. Educational researchers must heed the warning to avoid the “god-trick” (Haraway, 1988 ) and to continually question and re-question the ways we seek to define and present subjugated knowledge (Hesse-Biber, 2012 ).

Positionalities and Reflexivity

According to feminist ethnographer Noelle Stout, “Positionality isn’t meant to be a few sentences at the beginning of a work” (personal communication, April 5, 2016 ). In order to move to new ways of experiencing and studying the world, it is vital that scholars examine the ways that reflexivity and positionality are constructed. In a glorious footnote, Margery Wolf ( 1992 ) related reflexivity in anthropological writing to a bureaucratic procedure (p. 136), and that resonates with how positionality often operates in the field of education.

The current trend in educational research is to include a positionality statement that fixes the identity of the author in a particular place and time and is derived from feminist standpoint theory. Researchers should make their biases and the identities of the authors clear in a text, but there are serious issues with the way that positionality functions as a boundary around the authors. Examining how the researchers exert authority within a text allows the reader the opportunity to determine the intent and philosophy behind the text. If positionality were used in an embedded and reflexive manner, then educational research would be much richer and allow more nuanced views of schools, in addition to being more feminist in nature. The rest of this section briefly discussrs articles that engage with feminist ethics regarding researcher subjectivities and positionality, and two articles are examined in greater depth.

When looking for examples of research that includes deeply reflexive and embedded positionality, one finds that they mostly deal with issues of race, equity, and diversity. The highlighted articles provide examples of positionality statements that are deeply reflexive and represent the ways that feminist researchers can attend to the ethics of being part of a research project. These examples all come from feminist ethnographic projects, but they are applicable to a wide variety of feminist qualitative projects.

Martinez ( 2016 ) examined how research methods are or are not appropriate for specific contexts. Calderon ( 2016 ) examined autoethnography and the reproduction of “settler colonial understandings of marginalized communities” (p. 5). Similarly, Wissman, Staples, Vasudevan, and Nichols ( 2015 ) discussed how to research with adolescents through engaged participation and collaborative inquiry, and Ceglowski and Makovsky ( 2012 ) discussed the ways researchers can engage in duoethnography with young children.

Abajian ( 2016 ) uncovered the ways military recruiters operate in high schools and paid particular attention to the politics of remaining neutral while also working to subvert school militarization. She wrote,

Because of the sensitive and also controversial nature of my research, it was not possible to have a collaborative process with students, teachers, and parents. Purposefully intervening would have made documentation impossible because that would have (rightfully) aligned me with anti-war and counter-recruitment activists who were usually not welcomed on school campuses (Abajian & Guzman, 2013 ). It was difficult enough to find an administrator who gave me consent to conduct my research within her school, as I had explicitly stated in my participant recruitment letters and consent forms that I was going to research the promotion of post-secondary paths including the military. Hence, any purposeful intervention on my part would have resulted in the termination of my research project. At the same time, my documentation was, in essence, an intervention. I hoped that my presence as an observer positively shaped the context of my observation and also contributed to the larger struggle against the militarization of schools. (p. 26)

Her positionality played a vital role in the creation, implementation, and analysis of military recruitment, but it also forced her into unexpected silences in order to carry out her research. Abajian’s positionality statement brings up many questions about the ways researchers have to use or silence their positionality to further their research, especially if they are working in ostensibly “neutral” and “politically free” zones, such as schools. Her work drew on engaged anthropology (Low & Merry, 2010 ) and critical reflexivity (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008 ) to highlight how researchers’ subjectivities shape ethnographic projects. Questions of subjectivity and positionality in her work reflect the larger discourses around these topics in feminist theory and qualitative research.

Brown ( 2011 ) provided another example of embedded and reflexive positionality of the articles surveyed. Her entire study engaged with questions about how her positionality influenced the study during the field-work portion of her ethnography on how race and racism operate in ethnographic field-work. This excerpt from her study highlights how she conceived of positionality and how it informed her work and her process.

Next, I provide a brief overview of the research study from which this paper emerged and I follow this with a presentation of four, first-person narratives from key encounters I experienced while doing ethnographic field research. Each of these stories centres the role race played as I negotiated my multiple, complex positionality vis-á-vis different informants and participants in my study. These stories highlight the emotional pressures that race work has on the researcher and the research process, thus reaffirming why one needs to recognise the role race plays, and may play, in research prior to, during, and after conducting one’s study (Milner, 2007 ). I conclude by discussing the implications these insights have on preparing researchers of color to conduct cross-racial qualitative research. (Brown, 2011 , p. 98)

Brown centered the roles of race and subjectivity, both hers and her participants, by focusing her analysis on the four narratives. The researchers highlighted in this section thought deeply about the ethics of their projects and the ways that their positionality informed their choice of methods.

Methods and Challenges

Feminist qualitative research can take many forms, but the most common data collection methods include interviews, observations, and narrative or discourse analysis. For the purposes of this article, methods refer to the tools and techniques researchers use, while methodology refers to the larger philosophical and epistemological approaches to conducting research. It is also important to note that these are not fixed terms, and that there continues to be much debate about what constitutes feminist theory and feminist research methods among feminist qualitative researchers. This section discusses some of the tensions and constraints of using feminist theory in educational research.

Jackson and Mazzei ( 2012 ) called on researchers to think through their data with theory at all stages of the collection and analysis process. They also reminded us that all data collection is partial and informed by the researcher’s own beliefs (Koro-Ljungberg, Löytönen, & Tesar, 2017 ). Interviews are sites of power and critiques because they show the power of stories and serve as a method of worlding, the process of “making a world, turning insight into instrument, through and into a possible act of freedom” (Spivak, 2014 , p. xiii). Interviews allow researchers and participants ways to engage in new ways of understanding past experiences and connecting them to feminist theories. The narratives serve as data, but it is worth noting that the data collected from interviews are “partial, incomplete, and always being re-told and re-membered” (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012 , p. 3), much like the lived experiences of both researcher and participant.

Research, data collection, and interpretation are not neutral endeavors, particularly with interviews (Jackson & Mazzei, 2009 ; Mazzei, 2007 , 2013 ). Since education research emerged out of educational psychology (Lather, 1991 ; St. Pierre, 2016 ), historically there has been an emphasis on generalizability and positivist data collection methods. Most feminist research makes no claims of generalizability or truth; indeed, to do so would negate the hyperpersonal and particular nature of this type of research (Love, 2017 ). St. Pierre ( 2016 ) viewed the lack of generalizability as an asset of feminist and poststructural research, rather than a limitation, because it creates a space of resistance against positivist research methodologies.

Denzin and Giardina ( 2016 ) urged researchers to “consider an alternative mode of thinking about the critical turn in qualitative inquiry and posit the following suggestion: perhaps it is time we turned away from ‘methodology’ altogether ” (p. 5, italics original). Despite the contention over the term critical among some feminist scholars (e.g. Ellsworth, 1989 ), their suggestion is valid and has been picked up by feminist and poststructural scholars who examine the tensions between following a strict research method/ology and the theoretical systems out of which they operate because precision in method obscures the messy and human nature of research (Koro-Ljungberg, 2016 ; Koro-Ljungberg et al., 2017 ; Love, 2017 ; St. Pierre & Pillow, 2000 ). Feminist qualitative researchers should seek to complicate the question of what method and methodology mean when conducting feminist research (Lather, 1991 ), due to the feminist emphasis on reflexive and situated research methods (Hesse-Biber, 2012 ).

Examples of Feminist Qualitative Research in Education

A complete overview of the literature is not possible here, due to considerations of length, but the articles and books selected represent the various debates within feminist educational research. They also show how research preoccupations have changed over the course of feminist work in education. The literature review is divided into three broad categories: Power, canons, and gender; feminist pedagogies, curriculums, and classrooms; and teacher education, identities, and knowledge. Each section provides a broad overview of the literature to demonstrate the breadth of work using feminist theory, with some examples more deeply explicated to describe how feminist theories inform the scholarship.

Power, Canons, and Gender

The literature in this category contests disciplinary practices that are androcentric in both content and form, while asserting the value of using feminist knowledge to construct knowledge. The majority of the work was written in the 1980s and supported the creation of feminist ways of knowing, particularly via the creation of women’s studies programs or courses in existing departments that centered female voices and experiences.

Questioning the canon has long been a focus of feminist scholarship, as has the attempt to subvert its power in the disciplines. Bezucha ( 1985 ) focused on the ways that departments of history resist the inclusion of both women and feminism in the historical canon. Similarly, Miller ( 1985 ) discussed feminism as subversion when seeking to expand the canon of French literature in higher education.

Lauter and Dieterich ( 1972 ) examined a report by ERIC, “Women’s Place in Academe,” a collection of articles about the discrepancies by gender in jobs and tenure-track positions and the lack of inclusion of women authors in literature classes. They also found that women were relegated to “softer” disciplines and that feminist knowledge was not acknowledged as valid work. Culley and Portuges ( 1985 ) expanded the focus beyond disciplines to the larger structures of higher education and noted the varies ways that professors subvert from within their disciplines. DuBois et al. ( 1985 ) chronicled the development of feminist scholarship in the disciplines of anthropology, education, history, literature, and philosophy. They explained that the institutions of higher education often prevent feminist scholars from working across disciplines in an attempt to keep them separate. Raymond ( 1985 ) also critiqued the academy for not encouraging relationships across disciplines and offered the development of women’s, gender, and feminist studies as one solution to greater interdisciplinary work.

Parson ( 2016 ) examined the ways that STEM syllabi reinforce gendered norms in higher education. She specifically looked at eight syllabi from math, chemistry, biology, physics, and geology classes to determine how modal verbs showing stance, pronouns, intertextuality, interdiscursivity, and gender showed power relations in higher education. She framed the study through poststructuralist feminist critical discourse analysis to uncover “the ways that gendered practices that favor men are represented and replicated in the syllabus” (p. 103). She found that all the syllabi positioned knowledge as something that is, rather than something that can be co-constructed. Additionally, the syllabi also favored individual and masculine notions of what it means to learn by stressing the competitive and difficult nature of the classroom and content.

When reading newer work on feminism in higher education and the construction of knowledge, it is easy to feel that, while the conversations might have shifted somewhat, the challenge of conducting interdisciplinary feminist work in institutions of higher education remains as present as it was during the creation of women’s and gender studies departments. The articles all point to the fact that simply including women’s and marginalized voices in the academy does not erase or mitigate the larger issues of gender discrimination and androcentricity within the silos of the academy.

Feminist Pedagogies, Curricula, and Classrooms

This category of literature has many similarities to the previous one, but all the works focus more specifically on questions of curriculum and pedagogy. A review of the literature shows that the earliest conversations were about the role of women in academia and knowledge construction, and this selection builds on that work to emphasize the ways that feminism can influence the events within classes and expands the focus to more levels of education.

Rich ( 1985 ) explained that curriculum in higher education courses needs to validate gender identities while resisting patriarchal canons. Maher ( 1985 ) narrowed the focus to a critique of the lecture as a pedagogical technique that reinforces androcentric ways of learning and knowing. She called for classes in higher education to be “collaborative, cooperative, and interactive” (p. 30), a cry that still echoes across many college campuses today, especially from students in large lecture-based courses. Maher and Tetreault ( 1994 ) provided a collection of essays that are rooted in feminist classroom practice and moved from the classroom into theoretical possibilities for feminist education. Warren ( 1998 ) recommended using Peggy McIntosh’s five phases of curriculum development ( 1990 ) and extending it to include feminist pedagogies that challenge patriarchal ways of teaching. Exploring the relational encounters that exist in feminist classrooms, Sánchez-Pardo ( 2017 ) discussed the ethics of pedagogy as a politics of visibility and investigated the ways that democratic classrooms relate to feminist classrooms.

While all of the previously cited literature is U.S.–based, the next two works focus on the ways that feminist pedagogies and curriculum operate in a European context. Weiner ( 1994 ) used autobiography and narrative methodologies to provide an introduction to how feminism has influenced educational research and pedagogy in Britain. Revelles-Benavente and Ramos ( 2017 ) collected a series of studies about how situated feminist knowledge challenges the problems of neoliberal education across Europe. These two, among many European feminist works, demonstrate the range of scholarship and show the trans-Atlantic links between how feminism has been received in educational settings. However, much more work needs to be done in looking at the broader global context, and particularly by feminist scholars who come from non-Western contexts.

The following literature moves us into P–12 classrooms. DiGiovanni and Liston ( 2005 ) called for a new research agenda in K–5 education that explores the hidden curriculums surrounding gender and gender identity. One source of the hidden curriculum is classroom literature, which both Davies ( 2003 ) and Vandergrift ( 1995 ) discussed in their works. Davies ( 2003 ) used feminist ethnography to understand how children who were exposed to feminist picture books talked about gender and gender roles. Vandergrift ( 1995 ) presented a theoretical piece that explored the ways picture books reinforce or resist canons. She laid out a future research agenda using reader response theory to better comprehend how young children question gender in literature. Willinsky ( 1987 ) explored the ways that dictionary definitions reinforced constructions of gender. He looked at the definitions of the words clitoris, penis , and vagina in six school dictionaries and then compared them with A Feminist Dictionary to see how the definitions varied across texts. He found a stark difference in the treatment of the words vagina and penis ; definitions of the word vagina were treated as medical or anatomical and devoid of sexuality, while definitions of the term penis were linked to sex (p. 151).

Weisner ( 2004 ) addressed middle school classrooms and highlighted the various ways her school discouraged unconventional and feminist ways of teaching. She also brought up issues of silence, on the part of both teachers and students, regarding sexuality. By including students in the curriculum planning process, Weisner provided more possibilities for challenging power in classrooms. Wallace ( 1999 ) returned to the realm of higher education and pushed literature professors to expand pedagogy to be about more than just the texts that are read. She challenged the metaphoric dichotomy of classrooms as places of love or battlefields; in doing so, she “advocate[d] active ignorance and attention to resistances” (p. 194) as a method of subverting transference from students to teachers.

The works discussed in this section cover topics ranging from the place of women in curriculum to the gendered encounters teachers and students have with curriculums and pedagogies. They offer current feminist scholars many directions for future research, particularly in the arena of P–12 education.

Teacher Education, Identities, and Knowledge

The third subset of literature examines the ways that teachers exist in classrooms and some possibilities for feminist teacher education. The majority of the literature in this section starts from the premise that the teachers are engaged in feminist projects. The selections concerning teacher education offer critiques of existing heteropatriarchal normative teacher education and include possibilities for weaving feminism and feminist pedagogies into the education of preservice teachers.

Holzman ( 1986 ) explored the role of multicultural teaching and how it can challenge systematic oppression; however, she complicated the process with her personal narrative of being a lesbian and working to find a place within the school for her sexual identity. She questioned how teachers can protect their identities while also engaging in the fight for justice and equity. Hoffman ( 1985 ) discussed the ways teacher power operates in the classroom and how to balance the personal and political while still engaging in disciplinary curriculums. She contended that teachers can work from personal knowledge and connect it to the larger curricular concerns of their discipline. Golden ( 1998 ) used teacher narratives to unpack how teachers can become radicalized in the higher education classroom when faced with unrelenting patriarchal and heteronormative messages.

Extending this work, Bailey ( 2001 ) discussed teachers as activists within the classroom. She focused on three aspects of teaching: integrity with regard to relationships, course content, and teaching strategies. She concluded that teachers cannot separate their values from their profession. Simon ( 2007 ) conducted a case study of a secondary teacher and communities of inquiry to see how they impacted her work in the classroom. The teacher, Laura, explicitly tied her inquiry activities to activist teacher education and critical pedagogy, “For this study, inquiry is fundamental to critical pedagogy, shaped by power and ideology, relationships within and outside of the classroom, as well as teachers’ and students’ autochthonous histories and epistemologies” (Simon, 2007 , p. 47). Laura’s experiences during her teacher education program continued during her years in the classroom, leading her to create a larger activism-oriented teacher organization.

Collecting educational autobiographies from 17 college-level feminist professors, Maher and Tetreault ( 1994 ) worried that educators often conflated “the experience and values of white middle-class women like ourselves for gendered universals” (p. 15). They complicated the idea of a democratic feminist teacher, raised issues regarding the problematic ways hegemonic feminism flattens experience to that of just white women, and pushed feminist professors to pay particular attention to the intersections of race, class, gender, and sexuality when teaching.

Cheira ( 2017 ) called for gender-conscious teaching and literature-based teaching to confront the gender stereotypes she encountered in Portuguese secondary schools. Papoulis and Smith ( 1992 ) conducted summer sessions where teachers experienced writing activities they could teach their students. Conceptualized as an experiential professional development course, the article revolved around an incident where the seminar was reading Emily Dickinson and the men in the course asked the two female instructors why they had to read feminist literature and the conversations that arose. The stories the women told tie into Papoulis and Smith’s call for teacher educators to interrogate their underlying beliefs and ideologies about gender, race, and class, so they are able to foster communities of study that can purposefully and consciously address feminist inquiry.

McWilliam ( 1994 ) collected stories of preservice teachers in Australia to understand how feminism can influence teacher education. She explored how textual practices affect how preservice teachers understand teaching and their role. Robertson ( 1994 ) tackled the issue of teacher education and challenged teachers to move beyond the two metaphors of banking and midwifery when discussing feminist ways of teaching. She called for teacher educators to use feminist pedagogies within schools of education so that preservice teachers experience a feminist education. Maher and Rathbone ( 1986 ) explored the scholarship on women’s and girls’ educational experiences and used their findings to call for changes in teacher education. They argued that schools reinforce the notion that female qualities are inferior due to androcentric curriculums and ways of showing knowledge. Justice-oriented teacher education is a more recent iteration of this debate, and Jones and Hughes ( 2016 ) called for community-based practices to expand the traditional definitions of schooling and education. They called for preservice teachers to be conversant with, and open to, feminist storylines that defy existing gendered, raced, and classed stereotypes.

Bieler ( 2010 ) drew on feminist and critical definitions of dialogue (e.g., those by Bakhtin, Freire, Ellsworth, hooks, and Burbules) to reframe mentoring discourse in university supervision and dialogic praxis. She concluded by calling on university supervisors to change their methods of working with preservice teachers to “Explicitly and transparently cultivat[e] dialogic praxis-oriented mentoring relationships so that the newest members of our field can ‘feel their own strength at last,’ as Homer’s Telemachus aspired to do” (Bieler, 2010 , p. 422).

Johnson ( 2004 ) also examined the role of teacher educators, but she focused on the bodies and sexualities of preservice teachers. She explored the dynamics of sexual tension in secondary classrooms, the role of the body in teaching, and concerns about clothing when teaching. She explicitly worked to resist and undermine Cartesian dualities and, instead, explored the erotic power of teaching and seducing students into a love of subject matter. “But empowered women threaten the patriarchal structure of this society. Therefore, women have been acculturated to distrust erotic power” (Johnson, 2004 , p. 7). Like Bieler ( 2010 ), Johnson ( 2004 ) concluded that, “Teacher educators could play a role in creating a space within the larger framework of teacher education discourse such that bodily knowledge is considered along with pedagogical and content knowledge as a necessary component of teacher training and professional development” (p. 24). The articles about teacher education all sought to provoke questions about how we engage in the preparation and continuing development of educators.

Teacher identity and teacher education constitute how teachers construct knowledge, as both students and teachers. The works in this section raise issues of what identities are “acceptable” in the classroom, ways teachers and teacher educators can disrupt oppressive storylines and practices, and the challenges of utilizing feminist pedagogies without falling into hegemonic feminist practices.

Possibilities for Feminist Qualitative Research

Spivak ( 2012 ) believed that “gender is our first instrument of abstraction” (p. 30) and is often overlooked in a desire to understand political, curricular, or cultural moments. More work needs to be done to center gender and intersecting identities in educational research. One way is by using feminist qualitative methods. Classrooms and educational systems need to be examined through their gendered components, and the ways students operate within and negotiate systems of power and oppression need to be explored. We need to see if and how teachers are actively challenging patriarchal and heteronormative curriculums and to learn new methods for engaging in affirmative sabotage (Spivak, 2014 ). Given the historical emphasis on higher education, more work is needed regarding P–12 education, because it is in P–12 classrooms that affirmative sabotage may be the most necessary to subvert systems of oppression.

In order to engage in affirmative sabotage, it is vital that qualitative researchers who wish to use feminist theory spend time grappling with the complexity and multiplicity of feminist theory. It is only by doing this thought work that researchers will be able to understand the ongoing debates within feminist theory and to use it in a way that leads to a more equitable and just world. Simply using feminist theory because it may be trendy ignores the very real political nature of feminist activism. Researchers need to consider which theories they draw on and why they use those theories in their projects. One way of doing this is to explicitly think with theory (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012 ) at all stages of the research project and to consider which voices are being heard and which are being silenced (Gilligan, 2011 ; Spivak, 1988 ) in educational research. More consideration also needs to be given to non-U.S. and non-Western feminist theories and research to expand our understanding of education and schooling.

Paying close attention to feminist debates about method and methodology provides another possibility for qualitative research. The very process of challenging positivist research methods opens up new spaces and places for feminist qualitative research in education. It also allows researchers room to explore subjectivities that are often marginalized. When researchers engage in the deeply reflexive work that feminist research requires, it leads to acts of affirmative sabotage within the academy. These discussions create the spaces that lead to new visions and new worlds. Spivak ( 2006 ) once declared, “I am helpless before the fact that all my essays these days seem to end with projects for future work” (p. 35), but this is precisely the beauty of feminist qualitative research. We are setting ourselves and other feminist researchers up for future work, future questions, and actively changing the nature of qualitative research.

Acknowledgements

Dr. George Noblit provided the author with the opportunity to think deeply about qualitative methods and to write this article, for which the author is extremely grateful. Dr. Lynda Stone and Dr. Tanya Shields are thanked for encouraging the author’s passion for feminist theory and for providing many hours of fruitful conversation and book lists. A final thank you is owed to the author’s partner, Ben Skelton, for hours of listening to her talk about feminist methods, for always being a first reader, and for taking care of their infant while the author finished writing this article.

• Abajian, S. M. (2016). Documenting militarism: Challenges of researching highly contested practices within urban schools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 47 (1), 25–41.
• Abajian, S. M. , and Guzman, M. (2013). Moving beyond slogans: Possibilities for a more connected and humanizing “counter-recruitment” pedagogy in militarized urban schools. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing , 29 (2), 191–205.
• Allen, P. G. (1984). Who is your mother? Red roots of white feminism. Sinister Wisdom , 25 (Winter), 34–46.
• American Association of University Women . (1992). How schools shortchange girls: The AAUW report: A study of major findings on girls and education . Washington, DC.
• AAUW . (1999). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children . New York, NY: Marlowe.
• Bailey, C. (2001). Teaching as activism and excuse: A reconsideration of the theory−practice dichotomy. Feminist Teacher , 13 (2), 125–133.
• Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Behar, R. , & Gordon, D. A. (Eds.). (1995). Women writing culture . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Bezucha, R. J. (1985). Feminist pedagogy as a subversive activity. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 81–95). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Bieler, D. (2010). Dialogic praxis in teacher preparation: A discourse analysis of mentoring talk. English Education , 42 (4), 391–426.
• Brown, K. D. (2011). Elevating the role of race in ethnographic research: Navigating race relations in the field. Ethnography and Education , 6 (1), 97–111.
• Calderon, D. (2016). Moving from damage-centered research through unsettling reflexivity. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 47 (1), 5–24.
• Ceglowski, D. , & Makovsky, T. (2012) Duoethnography with children. Ethnography and Education , 7 (3), 283–295.
• Cheira, A. (2017). (Fostering) princesses that can stand on their own two feet: Using wonder tale narratives to change teenage gendered stereotypes in Portuguese EFL classrooms. In B. Revelles-Benavente & A. M. Ramos (Eds.), Teaching gender: Feminist pedagogy and responsibility in times of political crisis (pp. 146–162). London, U.K.: Routledge.
• Clifford, J. , & Marcus, G. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Coffey, A. , & Delamont, S. (2000). Feminism and the classroom teacher: Research, praxis, and pedagogy . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color . Stanford Law Review , 43 (6), 1241–1299.
• Culley, M. , & Portuges, C. (Eds.). (1985). Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching . Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Davies, B. (2003). Frogs and snails and feminist tales: Preschool children and gender . Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
• Davies, B. (2014). Listening to children: Being and becoming . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Davies, B. (2016). Emergent listening. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry through a critical lens (pp. 73–84). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Davis, A. Y. (2016). Freedom is a constant struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the foundations of a movement . Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
• Denzin, N. K. , & Giardina, M. D. (Eds.). (2016). Qualitative inquiry through a critical lens . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Derrida, J. (2016). Of grammatology ( G. C. Spivak , Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Digiovanni, L. W. , & Liston, D. D. (2005). Feminist pedagogy in the elementary classroom: An agenda for practice. Feminist Teacher , 15 (2), 123–131.
• Diller, A. , Houston, B. , Morgan, K. P. , & Ayim, M. (1996). The gender question in education: Theory, pedagogy, and politics . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• DuBois, E. C. , Kelly, G. P. , Kennedy, E. L. , Korsmeyer, C. W. , & Robinson, L. S. (1985). Feminist scholarship: Kindling in the groves of the academe . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Duncan-Andrade, J. M. , & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools . New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review , 59 (3), 297–324.
• Evans, B. , & Spivak, G. C. (2016, July 13). When law is not justice. New York Times (online).
• Gabriel, S. L. , & Smithson, I. (1990). Gender in the classroom: Power and pedagogy . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Gilligan, C. (2011). Joining the resistance . Malden, MA: Polity Press.
• Golden, C. (1998). The radicalization of a teacher. In G. E. Cohee , E. Däumer , T. D. Kemp , P. M. Krebs , S. Lafky , & S. Runzo (Eds.), The feminist teacher anthology . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Gottesman, I. H. (2016). The critical turn in education: From Marxist critique to poststructuralist feminism to critical theories of race . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Greene, M. (1994). Postmodernism and the crisis of representation. English Education , 26 (4), 206–219.
• Haddix, M. , McArthur, S. A. , Muhammad, G. E. , Price-Dennis, D. , & Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2016). At the kitchen table: Black women English educators speaking our truths. English Education , 48 (4), 380–395.
• Hancock, E. (1989). The girl within . New York, NY: Fawcett Columbine.
• Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies , 14 (3), 575–599.
• Harding, S. (1991). Whose science/Whose knowledge? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Harding, S. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Hesse-Biber, S. N. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Hill Collins, P. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Hoffman, N. J. (1985). Breaking silences: Life in the feminist classroom. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 147–154). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Holzman, L. (1986). What do teachers have to teach? Feminist Teacher , 2 (3), 23–24.
• Jackson, A. , & Mazzei, L. (2009). Voice in qualitative inquiry: Challenging conventional, interpretive, and critical conceptions in qualitative research . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Jackson, A. Y. , & Mazzei, L. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Jackson, C. , Paechter, C. , & Renold, E. (2010). Girls and education 3–16: Continuing concerns, new agendas . Maidenhead, U.K.: Open University Press.
• Johnson, T. S. (2004). “It’s pointless to deny that that dynamic is there”: Sexual tensions in secondary classrooms. English Education , 37 (1), 5–29.
• Jones, S. , & Hughes, H. E. (2016). Changing the place of teacher education: Feminism, fear, and pedagogical paradoxes . Harvard Educational Review , 86 (2), 161–182.
• Kerkhoff, S. N. (2015). Dialogism: Feminist revision of argumentative writing instruction . Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice , 64 (1), 443–460.
• Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2016). Reconceptualizing qualitiative research: Methodologies without methodology . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
• Koro-Ljungberg, M. , Löytönen, T. , & Tesar, M. (Eds.). (2017). Disrupting data in qualitative inquiry: Entanglements with the post-critical and post-anthropocentric . New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Kuby, C. R. , & Rucker, T. G. (2016). Go be a writer! Expanding the curricular boundaries of literacy learning with children . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Lather, P. (1991). Feminist research in education: Within/against . Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
• Lauter, N. A. , & Dieterich, D. (1972). “Woman’s place in academe”: An ERIC Report. English Education , 3 (3), 169–173.
• Levinson, B. A. (1998). (How) can a man do feminist ethnography of education? Qualitative Inquiry , 4 (3), 337–368.
• Love, B. L. (2017). A ratchet lens: Black queer youth, agency, hip hop, and the Black ratchet imagination . Educational Researcher , 46 (9), 539–547.
• Low, S. M. , & Merry, S. E. (2010). Engaged anthropology: Diversity and dilemmas. Current Anthropology 51 (S2), S203–S226.
• Maher, F. (1985). Classroom pedagogy and the new scholarship on women. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 29–48). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Maher, F. A. , & Rathbone, C. H. (1986). Teacher education and feminist theory: Some implications for practice. American Journal of Education , 94 (2), 214–235.
• Maher, F. A. , & Tetreault, M. K. T. (1994). The feminist classroom: An inside look a how professors and students are transforming higher education for a diverse society . New York, NY: Basic Books.
• Martinez, D. C. (2016). “This ain’t the projects”: A researcher’s reflections on the local appropriateness of our research tools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 47 (1), 59–77.
• Mayberry, M. , & Rose, E. C. (1999). Meeting the challenge: Innovative feminist pedagogies in action . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Mazzei, L. A. (2007). Inhabited silence in qualitative research: Putting poststructural theory to work . New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Mazzei, L. A. (2013). A voice without organs: interviewing in posthumanist research . International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 26 (6), 732–740.
• McIntosh, P. (1990). Interactive phases of curricular and personal revision with regard to race . New York: State University of New York Press.
• McWilliam, E. (1994). In broken images: Feminist tales for a different teacher education . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Miller, N. K. (1985). Mastery, identity and the politics of work: A feminist teacher in the graduate classroom. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 195–202). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher , 36 , 388–400.
• National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education . (2002). Title IX at thirty: Report card on gender equity .
• Orenstein, P. (1994). Schoolgirls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap . New York, NY: Anchor Books.
• Papoulis, I. , & Smith, C. A. (1992). Could Cherryl or Irene just take a few minutes to explain this feminist view of literature? English Education , 24 (1), 52–60.
• Parson, L. (2016). Are STEM syllabi gendered? A feminist critical discourse analysis. Qualitative Report , 21 (1), 102–116.
• Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls . New York, NY: Ballentine.
• Raymond, J. G. (1985). Women’s studies: A knowledge of one’s own. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 49–63). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Revelles-Benavente, B. , & Ramos, A. M. (Eds.). (2017). Teaching gender: Feminist pedagogy and responsiblity in times of political crisis . London, U.K.: Routledge.
• Rich, A. (1985). Taking women students seriously. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 21–28). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Robertson, L. (1994). Feminist teacher education: Applying feminist pedagogies to the preparation of new teachers. Feminist Teacher , 8 (1), 11–15.
• Sadker, M. , & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls . New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
• Sánchez-Pardo, E. (2017). “It’s a hell of a responsibilty to be yourself”: Troubling the personal and the political in feminist pedagogy. In B. Revelles-Benavente & A. M. Ramos (Eds.), Teaching gender: Feminist pedagogy and responsibility in times of political crisis (pp. 64–80). London, U.K.: Routledge.
• Simon, L. (2007). Expanding literacies: Teachers’ inquiry research and multigenre texts. English Education , 39 (2), 146–176.
• Spivak, G. C. (1974). Translator’s preface. In J. Derrida Of grammatology ( G. C. Spivak , Trans.). (pp. ix–xc). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? Speculations on widow-sacrifice. Wedge , 7 (8), 120–130.
• Spivak, G. C. (2006). In other worlds: Essays in cultural politics . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Spivak, G. C. (2009). Outside in the teaching machine . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Spivak, G. C. (2012). An aesthetic education in the era of globalization . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Spivak, G. C. (2014). Readings . New York, NY: Seagull Books.
• St. Pierre, E. A. (2000). Poststructural feminism in education: An overview . International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 13 (5), 477–515.
• St. Pierre, E. A. (2016). The long reach of logical positivism/logical empiricism. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry through a critical lens (pp. 19–30). New York, NY: Routledge.
• St. Pierre, E. A. , & Pillow, W. S. (Eds.). (2000). Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and methods in education . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Thayer-Bacon, B. J. , Stone, L. , & Sprecher, K. M. (2013). Education feminism: Classic and contemporary readings . Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Thompson, B. (2002). Multiracial feminism: Recasting the chronology of second wave feminism . Feminist Studies , 28 (2), 337–360.
• Vandergrift, K. E. (1995). Female protagonists and beyond: Picture books for future feminists. Feminist Teacher , 9 (2), 61–69.
• Wallace, M. L. (1999). Beyond love and battle: Practicing feminist pedagogy. Feminist Teacher , 12 (3), 184–197.
• Warren, K. J. (1998). Rewriting the future: The feminist challenge to the malestream curriculum. In G. E. Cohee , E. Däumer , T. D. Kemp , P. M. Krebs , S. Lafky , & S. Runzo (Eds.), The feminist teacher anthology . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Weiner, G. (1994). Feminisms in education: An introduction . Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.
• Weisner, J. (2004). Awakening teacher voice and student voice: The development of a feminist pedagogy. Feminist Teacher , 15 (1), 34–47.
• Willinsky, J. (1987). Learning the language of difference: The dictionary in the high school. English Education , 19 (3), 146–158.
• Wissman, K. K. , Staples, J. M. , Vasudevan, L. , & Nichols, R. E. (2015). Cultivating research pedagogies with adolescents: Created spaces, engaged participation, and embodied inquiry. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 46 (2), 186–197.
• Wolf, M. (1992). A thrice-told tale: Feminism, postmodernism, and ethnographic responsibility . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Related Articles

• Gender, Justice, and Equity in Education
• Education, Women, and the Politics of Curriculum
• Risky Truth-Making in Qualitative Inquiry
• Ecofeminism and Education
• Qualitative Approaches to Studying Marginalized Communities
• Poststructural Temporalities in School Ethnography
• Gender and Technology in Education
• Gender and the Superintendency
• Activism and Social Movement Building in Curriculum
• Gender Equitable Education and Technological Innovation

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 18 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.66.15.189]
• 185.66.15.189

Character limit 500 /500

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

• Study Notes

Feminist Views on the Role of Education

Last updated 26 Nov 2019

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Feminist sociologists have large areas of agreement with functionalists and Marxists in so far as they see the education system as transmitting a particular set of norms and values into the pupils. However, instead of seeing these as either a neutral value consensus or the values of the ruling class and capitalism, feminists see the education system as transmitting patriarchal values.

For example, Heaton and Lawson (1996) argued that the hidden curriculum taught patriarchal values in schools. They noted traditional family structures in textbooks (along with many other gender stereotypes, subjects aimed towards specific genders, gender divisions in PE and sport and the gender division of labour in schools (predominantly female teachers and male managers).

Liberal feminists would point out these remaining issues of patriarchy in education while also acknowledging significant strides towards equality in the education system. In the 1940s and 50s, under the tripartite system, boys had a lower pass rate for the 11+ than girls (essentially institutionally failing girls in order to ensure more boys can succeed) and some subjects being specifically for one gender or the other used to be institutional rather than based on apparent preference. Today, once subjects become optional, there are quite clear gender preferences for one subject or another, but all subjects are open to all pupils. Perhaps the biggest change, since the 1980s, is that girls now outperform boys in education so if the system is a patriarchal one, designed to favour boys, it is singularly failing. However, Michelle Stanworth (1983), for instance, noted that there will still higher expectations of boys and teachers would be more likely to recommend boys apply for higher education than girls at the same academic level.

Radical feminists argue that the education system is still fundamentally patriarchal and continues to marginalise and oppress women. It does this through some of the processes already noted (reinforcing patriarchal ideology through the formal and hidden curriculum and normalising the marginalisation and oppression of women so that by the time girls leave school they see it as normal and natural rather than as patriarchal oppression). Radical feminist research has also looked at sexual harassment in education and how it is not treated as seriously as other forms of bullying (e.g. Kat Banyard, 2011).

Black and difference feminists point out how not all girls have the same experience in education and that minority-ethnic girls are often victims of specific stereotyping and assumptions. For example, teachers might assume that Muslim girls have different aspirations in relation to career and family from their peers. There have been studies of the specific school experiences of black girls, which we will consider in more detail in future sections.

Where feminists acknowledge that there has been a great deal of improvement for girls in education, they would point to feminism itself as being one of the main reasons for this. Sue Sharpe (1996) found that London schoolgirls in the 1970s had completely different priorities and aspirations from similar girls in 1996. She found that while in the 1970s girls’ priorities were marriage and family, in the 1990s this had switched dramatically to career. While there are a number of potential reasons for this, legislative changes such as the 1970 Equal Pay Act and the 1976 Sex Discrimination Act are likely to have played their part, hence supporting a liberal feminist perspective).

What all feminists agree on is that the education system does work as an agent of secondary socialisation which teaches girls and boys what are seen as universal norms and values and gender scripts that are actually those of contemporary patriarchy and that girls and boys learning these values prevents social change and challenges to patriarchy.

Evaluating feminist views on the role of education

Two features of contemporary education, at least in the UK, which critics of feminist views on education often point out are: 1) education is an increasingly female-dominated sector (most teachers are women, an increasing number of managers are women because they are drawn from the available teachers) and 2) the education system is increasingly resulting in female success and male underperformance. If this is a system designed to ensure men are in the top positions in society and women are marginalised into a domestic role, then it would appear to be failing. The education system is sending more and more girls into higher education (Michelle Stanworth’s research on this is now out of date).

However, while there is clearly some truth in these criticisms, it is still clear that there is a glass ceiling and a gender pay gap so the education system might be creating lots of highly-qualified girls, they are still losing out to their male peers when it comes to top jobs and higher incomes. They are also still more likely to take time off for child-rearing, work part time and to carry out the majority of housework tasks. Feminists point out that the education system largely normalises this (alongside other agents of socialisation such as the family and the media) and so even highly-qualified women often accept this as inevitable or normal. At the same time men are socialised to also consider this normal.

• Hidden curriculum
• Radical Feminism

You might also like

​example answer for question 1 paper 1: a level sociology, june 2017 (aqa).

Exam Support

New research about child poverty

8th December 2017

A Home Education

16th April 2018

'Plastic brains'

16th January 2019

Bowles and Gintis on Education

Topic Videos

Early years education

3rd March 2020

After Covid, will digital learning be the new normal?

2nd February 2021

Anti-racism training in Wales to boost ethnically diverse teachers

18th October 2022

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Feminist Theory

Jo Ann Arinder

Feminist theory falls under the umbrella of critical theory, which in general have the purpose of destabilizing systems of power and oppression. Feminist theory will be discussed here as a theory with a lower case ‘t’, however this is not meant to imply that it is not a Theory or cannot be used as one, only to acknowledge that for some it may be a sub-genre of Critical Theory, while for others it stands alone. According to Egbert and Sanden (2020), some scholars see critical paradigms as extensions of the interpretivist, but there is also an emphasis on oppression and lived experience grounded in subjectivist epistemology.

The purpose of using a feminist lens is to enable the discovery of how people interact within systems and possibly offer solutions to confront and eradicate oppressive systems and structures. Feminist theory considers the lived experience of any person/people, not just women, with an emphasis on oppression.  While there may not be a consensus on where feminist theory fits as a theory or paradigm, disruption of oppression is a core tenant of feminist work. As hooks (2000) states, “Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression. I liked this definition because it does not imply that men were the enemy” (p. viii).

Previous Studies

Marxism and socialism are key components in the heritage.of feminist theory. The origins of feminist theory can be found in the 18th century with growth in the 1970s’ and 1980s’ equality movements. According to Burton (2014), feminist theory has its roots in Marxism but specifically looks to Engles’ (1884) work as one possible starting point. Burton (2014) notes that, “Origin of the Family and commentaries on it were central texts to the feminist movement in its early years because of the felt need to understand the origins and subsequent development of the subordination of the female sex” (p. 2). Work in feminist theory, including research regarding gender equality, is ongoing.

Gender equality continues to be an issue today, and research into gender equality in education is still moving feminist theory forward. For example, Pincock’s (2017) study discusses the impact of repressive norms on the education of girls in Tanzania. The author states that, “…considerations of what empowerment looks like in relation to one’s sexuality are particularly important in relation to schooling for teenage girls as a route to expanding their agency” (p. 909). This consideration can be extended to any oppressed group within an educational setting and is not an area of inquiry relegated to the oppression of only female students. For example, non-binary students face oppression within educational systems and even male students can face barriers, and students are often still led towards what are considered “gender appropriate” studies. This creates a system of oppression that requires active work to disrupt.

Looking at representation in the literature used in education is another area of inquiry in feminist research. For example, Earles (2017) focused on physical educational settings to explore relationships “between gendered literary characters and stories and the normative and marginal responses produced by children” (p. 369). In this research, Earles found evidence to support that a contradiction between the literature and children’s lived experiences exists. The author suggests that educators can help to continue the reduction of oppressive gender norms through careful selection of literature and spaces to allow learners opportunities for appropriate discussions about these inconsistencies.

In another study, Mackie (1999) explored incorporating feminist theory into evaluation research. Mackie was evaluating curriculum created for English language learners that recognized the dual realities of some students, also known as the intersectionality of identity, and concluded that this recognition empowered students. Mackie noted that valuing experience and identity created a potential for change on an individual and community level and “Feminist and other types of critical teaching and research provide needed balance to TESL and applied linguistics” (p. 571).Further, Bierema and Cseh (2003) used a feminist research framework to examine previously ignored structural inequalities that affect the lives of women working in the field of human resources.

Model of Feminist Theory

Figure 1 presents a model of feminist theory that begins with the belief that systems exist that oppress and work against individuals. The model then shows that oppression is based on intersecting identities that can create discrimination and exclusion. The model indicates the idea that, through knowledge and action, oppressive systems can be disrupted to support change and understanding.

The core concepts in feminist theory are sex, gender, race, discrimination, equality, difference, and choice. There are systems and structures in place that work against individuals based on these qualities and against equality and equity. Research in critical paradigms requires the belief that, through the exploration of these existing conditions in the current social order, truths can be revealed. More important, however, this exploration can simultaneously build awareness of oppressive systems and create spaces for diverse voices to speak for themselves (Egbert & Sanden, 2019).

Constructs 

Feminism is concerned with the constructs of intersectionality, dimensions of social life, social inequality, and social transformation. Through feminist research, lasting contributions have been made to understanding the complexities and changes in the gendered division of labor. Men and women should be politically, economically, and socially equal and this theory does not subscribe to differences or similarities between men, nor does it refer to excluding men or only furthering women’s causes. Feminist theory works to support change and understanding through acknowledging and disrupting power and oppression.

Proposition 

Feminist theory proposes that when power and oppression are acknowledged and disrupted, understanding, advocacy, and change can occur.

Using the Model

There are many potential ways to utilize this model in research and practice. First, teachers and students can consider what systems of power exist in their classroom, school, or district. They can question how these systems are working to create discrimination and exclusion. By considering existing social structures, they can acknowledge barriers and issues inherit to the system. Once these issues are acknowledged, they can be disrupted so that change and understanding can begin. This may manifest, for example, as considering how past colonialism has oppressed learners of English as a second or foreign language.

The use of feminist theory in the classroom can ensure that the classroom is created, in advance, to consider barriers to learning faced by learners due to sex, gender, difference, race, or ability. This can help to reduce oppression created by systemic issues. In the case of the English language classroom, learners may be facing oppression based on their native language or country of origin. Facing these barriers in and out of the classroom can affect learners’ access to education. Considering these barriers in planning and including efforts to mitigate the issues and barriers faced by learners is a use of feminist theory.

Feminist research is interested in disrupting systems of oppression or barriers created from these systems with a goal of creating change. All research can include feminist theory when the research adds to efforts to work against and advocate to eliminate the power and oppression that exists within systems or structures that, in particular, oppress women. An examination of education in general could be useful since education is a field typically dominated by women; however, women are not often in leadership roles in the field. In the same way, using feminist theory for an examination into the lack of people of color and male teachers represented in education might also be useful. Action research is another area that can use feminist theory. Action research is often conducted in the pursuit of establishing changes that are discovered during a project. Feminism and action research are both concerned with creating change, which makes them a natural pairing.

Pre-existing beliefs about what feminism means can make including it in classroom practice or research challenging. Understanding that feminism is about reducing oppression for everyone and sharing that definition can reduce this challenge. hooks (2000) said that, “A male who has divested of male privilege, who has embraced feminist politics, is a worthy comrade in struggle, in no way a threat to feminism, whereas a female who remains wedded to sexist thinking and behavior infiltrating feminist movement is a dangerous threat”(p. 12). As Angela Davis noted during a speech at Western Washington University in 2017, “Everything is a feminist issue.” Feminist theory is about questioning existing structures and whether they are creating barriers for anyone. An interest in the reduction of barriers is feminist. Anyone can believe in the need to eliminate oppression and work as teachers or researchers to actively to disrupt systems of oppression.

Bierema, L. L., & Cseh, M. (2003). Evaluating AHRD research using a feminist research framework.  Human Resource Development Quarterly ,  14 (1), 5–26.

Burton, C. (2014).   Subordination: Feminism and social theory . Routledge.

Earles, J. (2017). Reading gender: A feminist, queer approach to children’s literature and children’s discursive agency.  Gender and Education, 29 (3), 369–388.

Egbert, J., & Sanden, S. (2019).  Foundations of education research: Understanding theoretical components . Taylor & Francis.

Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics . South End Press.

Mackie, A. (1999). Possibilities for feminism in ESL education and research.  TESOL  Quarterly, 33 (3), 566-573.

Pincock, K. (2018). School, sexuality and problematic girlhoods: Reframing ‘empowerment’ discourse.  Third World Quarterly, 39 (5), 906-919.

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

• Books, Journals, Papers
• Current Events
• Life Around The World
• Research Methods
• Sociology Theorists
• Functionalism
• Postmodernism
• Social Constructionism
• Structuralism
• Symbolic Interactionism
• Sociology of Crime & Deviance
• Sociology of Art
• Sociology of Food
• Sociology of Disability
• Sociology of Economics
• Sociology of Education
• Sociology of Family
• Sociology of Gender
• Sociology of Health
• Sociology of Identity
• Sociology of Ideology
• Sociology of Inequalities
• Sociology of Film
• Sociology of Gaming
• Sociology of Literature
• Sociology of Music
• Sociology of Nature & Environment
• Sociology of Politics
• Sociology of Power
• Sociology of Race & Ethnicity
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Sexuality
• Sociology of Technology
• Sociology of Violence & Conflict
• Sociology of Work
• Privacy Policy

The Feminist View of Education: An Outline, Explanation, and Analysis

Introduction

In sociology, the feminist view of education is a perspective that examines how education systems perpetuate gender inequalities and reinforce traditional gender roles. This viewpoint analyzes various aspects of education, including curriculum, teaching methods, and institutional practices, to understand how they impact gender socialization and contribute to the overall gender imbalance in society.

The Patriarchal Nature of Education

Feminist theorists argue that education systems are inherently patriarchal, meaning they favor and promote the interests of men over women. This bias is evident in several ways:

You might also like

Deschooling: Challenging the Traditional Education System and Fostering Alternative Learning

Rethinking Education: The Concept of Deschooling

• Curriculum: The curriculum often reflects a male-dominated perspective, with limited representation of women’s achievements and contributions. This omission reinforces the perception that women’s experiences and accomplishments are less valuable or significant.
• Gender Stereotypes: Education perpetuates gender stereotypes by assigning certain subjects, such as science and math, as more suitable for boys, while relegating others, like home economics and childcare, to girls. These stereotypes limit the choices and opportunities available to students based on their gender.
• Teacher Bias: Teachers may unknowingly exhibit bias by giving more attention and encouragement to male students, leading to disparities in academic achievement and self-esteem.

Gender Socialization in Education

Feminist scholars argue that education plays a crucial role in the socialization process, where individuals learn societal norms, values, and behaviors. In this context, education reinforces traditional gender roles and expectations, contributing to the perpetuation of gender inequalities. Some key points include:

• Reproduction of Gender Roles: Education often reinforces traditional gender roles by teaching students to conform to societal expectations. For example, girls are encouraged to be nurturing and passive, while boys are encouraged to be assertive and dominant.
• Hidden Curriculum: The hidden curriculum refers to the unspoken lessons and values that students learn through the educational system. This includes implicit messages about gender, such as the idea that boys are naturally better at certain subjects or that girls should prioritize their appearance over academic pursuits.
• Gendered Career Aspirations: Education can influence students’ career aspirations by directing them towards gender-specific professions. For instance, girls may be steered towards careers in nursing or teaching, while boys are encouraged to pursue careers in engineering or finance.

Challenges and Progress

While the feminist view of education highlights the inequalities and biases within the system, it also recognizes the progress made towards gender equality. Some challenges and advancements include:

• Gender Pay Gap: Despite improvements, women continue to face a gender pay gap, which is influenced by educational attainment. Feminist scholars argue that addressing gender inequalities in education is crucial to reducing this gap.
• Representation in Leadership: Women are underrepresented in leadership positions within educational institutions. Advocates for feminist education argue that increasing female representation in decision-making roles is essential for promoting gender equality.
• Intersectionality: The feminist view of education acknowledges the importance of considering intersectionality, which recognizes that gender intersects with other social identities, such as race, class, and sexuality. This perspective highlights the unique challenges faced by individuals who experience multiple forms of oppression.

The feminist view of education provides a critical lens through which to analyze how educational systems contribute to gender inequalities. By examining the curriculum, socialization processes, and institutional practices, feminists aim to challenge and transform the patriarchal nature of education. While progress has been made, ongoing efforts are necessary to create a more inclusive and equitable educational system that empowers all individuals, regardless of their gender.

Mr Edwards has a PhD in sociology and 10 years of experience in sociological knowledge

Related Stories

Learn about the concept of deschooling and its implications for education. Deschooling challenges the traditional education system and advocates for...

Learn about the concept of deschooling and its implications for society. Discover the origins of deschooling and the key principles...

Credential Inflation: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions

Credential inflation in sociology refers to the increasing value and importance of educational credentials over time. This blog post explores...

City Technology Colleges: An Outline and Explanation in Sociology

Learn about City Technology Colleges (CTCs) and their impact on the education system and society. Explore the concept, purpose, key...

The Feminist View of Culture: An Outline, Explanation, and Analysis

The Feminist View of Crime and Deviance: An Outline, Explanation, and Analysis

The Feminist View of Religion: Outlining, Explaining, and Analyzing

Get the latest sociology, recommended.

Exploring the World of Cyber Ethnography: Understanding Online Communities and Digital Cultures

The Neoliberal View of Crime and Deviance

Popular story.

Pierre Bourdieu’s Symbolic Violence: An Outline and Explanation

Understanding clans in sociology, the functionalist perspective on gender in sociology, understanding social class inequality: a sociological perspective, what is a social actor exploring the concept in sociology.

Easy Sociology makes sociology as easy as possible. Our aim is to make sociology accessible for everybody. © 2023 Easy Sociology

© 2023 Easy Sociology

A Guide to Feminist Pedagogy

• [framework for this guide]
• Rooted in Epistemology
• Construction of Knowledge
• The Role of Experience & Emotions
• Critical View of Power & Authority
• The Complexity of Identity
• The Importance of Community
• Course Design
• Learning Environment
• A Few Examples
• Works Cited
• How We Wrote It

Introduction to This Guide

Feminist pedagogy is not a toolbox, a collection of strategies, a list of practices, or a specific classroom arrangement.  It is an overarching philosophy—a theory of teaching and learning that integrates feminist values with related theories and research on teaching and learning.

It begins with our beliefs and motivations:   why do we teach? why do students learn? what are the goals of learning? We know that the consequences of our motives for teaching and learning are significant: Keith Trigwell and Mike Prosser have shown that the instructor’s intentions in teaching (“why the person adopts a particular strategy”) have a greater impact on student learning than the instructor’s actual strategies for teaching (“what the person does”) (78). Their research has shown that approaches to teaching that are purposefully focused on the students and aimed at changing conceptual frameworks lead to deeper learning practices than teacher-centered, information-driven approaches (Trigwell 98). The implications are that the instructor’s fundamental beliefs and values about teaching, learning, and knowledge-making matter .

In this guide, we explain some of the fundamental beliefs, values, and intentions behind feminist pedagogy to inform a deliberate application in specific classrooms –any and all classrooms, as feminist pedagogy can inform any disciplinary context. (For a more focused exploration of feminist pedagogy specifically within the women’s studies classroom, see Holly Hassel and Nerissa Nelson’s “A Signature Feminist Pedagogy: Connection and Transformation in Women’s Studies.”)

This guide is not a primer on feminism, though, so we begin having assumed the following:

We live within a patriarchy, a term which we define—following the work of Allan Johnson—as a society that’s structure is “male-dominated, male-centered, and male-identified” (5). For more, read Allan Johnson’s Gender Knot , particularly chapter one, “Where are we?” and   chapter two, “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.” Differences exist “between and among groups” of people based on lived experiences that are informed by the complex interactions between “history, culture, power, and ideology” (McLaren 43). For more, read Peter McLaren’s taxonomy of approaches to difference . The concept of “woman” does not exist in isolation from other identities. Rather, identity is “intersectional,” a term that recognizes the interlocking and inextricable relationship between different aspects of identity and systems of oppression. For more, read Kimberlé Crenshaw’s “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.”  

How This Guide Was Written

-- See how composition process matched our subject matter.

-- Learn about the eight authors of this guide.

Guide Co-authors:

March , 2015

Raquelle Bostow Sherry Brewer Nancy Chick Ben Galina

Allison McGrath Kirsten Mendoza Kristen Navarro Lis Valle-Ruiz

<-- About the authors <-- How we wrote this guide on behalf of the Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

12.14: Reading: Feminist Theory on Education

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 83901

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Feminist Theory

Feminist theory aims to understand the mechanisms and roots of gender inequality in education, as well as their societal repercussions. Like many other institutions of society, educational systems are characterized by unequal treatment and opportunity for women. Almost two-thirds of the world’s 862 million illiterate people are women, and the illiteracy rate among women is expected to increase in many regions, especially in several African and Asian countries (UNESCO 2005; World Bank 2007).

Women in the United States have been relatively late, historically speaking, to be granted entry to the public university system. In fact, it wasn’t until the establishment of Title IX of the Education Amendments in 1972 that discriminating on the basis of sex in U.S. education programs became illegal. In the United States, there is also a post-education gender disparity between what male and female college graduates earn. A study released in May 2011 showed that, among men and women who graduated from college between 2006 and 2010, men out-earned women by an average of more than $5,000 each year. First-year job earnings for men averaged $33,150; for women the average was $28,000 (Godofsky, Zukin, and van Horn 2011). Similar trends are seen among salaries of professionals in virtually all industries.

When women face limited opportunities for education, their capacity to achieve equal rights, including financial independence, are limited. Feminist theory seeks to promote women’s rights to equal education (and its resultant benefits) across the world.

• Introduction to Sociology 2e. Authored by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/02040312-72c8-441e-a685-20e9333f3e1d/Introduction_to_Sociology_2e . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]
• female graduates in 1903. Authored by : Snyder, Frank R.u00a0. Provided by : Wikipedia. Located at : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Group_of_women_in_cap_and_gown_at_Western_College_on_Tree_Day_1903_(3191801017).jpg . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright

Module 9: Religion and Education

Reading: feminist theory on education, feminist theory.

Some 1903 female graduates of Western University.

Feminist theory aims to understand the mechanisms and roots of gender inequality in education, as well as their societal repercussions. Like many other institutions of society, educational systems are characterized by unequal treatment and opportunity for women. Almost two-thirds of the world’s 862 million illiterate people are women, and the illiteracy rate among women is expected to increase in many regions, especially in several African and Asian countries (UNESCO 2005; World Bank 2007).

Women in the United States have been relatively late, historically speaking, to be granted entry to the public university system. In fact, it wasn’t until the establishment of Title IX of the Education Amendments in 1972 that discriminating on the basis of sex in U.S. education programs became illegal. In the United States, there is also a post-education gender disparity between what male and female college graduates earn. A study released in May 2011 showed that, among men and women who graduated from college between 2006 and 2010, men out-earned women by an average of more than $5,000 each year. First-year job earnings for men averaged $33,150; for women the average was $28,000 (Godofsky, Zukin, and van Horn 2011). Similar trends are seen among salaries of professionals in virtually all industries.

When women face limited opportunities for education, their capacity to achieve equal rights, including financial independence, are limited. Feminist theory seeks to promote women’s rights to equal education (and its resultant benefits) across the world.

• Introduction to Sociology 2e. Authored by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/02040312-72c8-441e-a685-20e9333f3e1d/Introduction_to_Sociology_2e . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]
• female graduates in 1903. Provided by : Wikipedia. Located at : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Group_of_women_in_cap_and_gown_at_Western_College_on_Tree_Day_1903_(3191801017).jpg . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

The Feminist Perspective on Education (UK Focus)

Liberal Feminists celebrate the progress made so far in improving girls’ achievement. They essentially believe that the ‘Future is now Female’ and now that girls are outperforming boys in education, it is only a matter of time until more women move into politics and higher paid, managerial roles at work.

Radical Feminists , however, argue that Patriarchy still works through school to reinforce traditional gender norms and to disadvantage girls – Add in details to the notes below.

Some Radical Feminist Sociologists see concern over boys’ relative underachievement as a ‘moral panic’. Boys have still been improving their achievement in the last thirty years, just not as fast as girls. The Feminist argument is that the focus on education at the moment on ‘raising boys achievement’ reflects a male dominated system panicking at the fact that old patriarchal power relations are starting to break down.

Despite improvements in girl’s education – subject choices still remain heavily gendered, and girls do not seem to be ‘breaking the glass ceiling’.

Feminists would also draw on the above research which suggests that traditional gender norms are reinforced in schools, to the disadvantage of girls.

Recent research suggests that despite girls doing well at school – girls are increasingly subject to sexist bullying, something which is becoming worse with the ‘normalisation of pornography’. Read the extract from Kat Banyard over page for more details and consider how common such incidents are today. Read the extract provided for details

While girls are discouraged from using their bodies on the sports field, they often find their bodies at the centre of another unwelcome kind of activity. Chloe was one of the many women and girls I heard from during the course of my research into violence at school. ‘I had boys groping my en masse. It wasn’t just at break times – in class as well. Sometimes they used to hold me down and take it turns, it was universally accepted. Teachers pretended they didn’t notice. I would regularly hang out in the toilets at break time. I felt pretty violated; it made me hate my body.’ Having now left school, Chloe can pinpoint exactly when the sexual harassment began. ‘When my breasts grew. I went from an A to an E cup when I was fourteen.’ It became a regular feature of her school day, mostly happening when the boys were in groups. ‘People would randomly scream ‘’slut’’. One boy told me that he has a fantasy that he wanted to tie me up and viciously rape me. He was a bit of an outcast. But when he said that all the boys were high-fiving him. He got serious street-cred for saying it.’’ Classrooms are training grounds for boys aspiring to be ‘real men’ and girls like Jena and Chloe are paying the price. Humiliating and degrading girls serves to highlight just how masculine boys really are. And so, sexist bullying and sexual harassment are an integral part of daily school life for many girls.

Hayley described to me how some of the boys at her secondary school were using new technologies to harass girls. ‘They try and take pictures with their camera phones up you skirt while you’re sitting at your desk. Nobody knows what to say. They wouldn’t want to provoke an argument.’ Boys also access internet pornography on school computers. Hayley said, ‘in year seven and eight it’s quite common. Even the boys you wouldn’t expect you see getting told off by teachers for it.’ Similarly Sarah remembers pornography being commonplace at her school; ‘Every student was asked to bring in newspaper articles. Many boys saw this as a great opportunity to bring in newspapers such as the Sun, Star, Sport etc and make a point of looking at, sharing and showing the countless page-three-style images. Sarah was ‘extremely upset on a number of occasions when boys who sat near me in class would push these pages in front of me and make comments. Most of the time all the forms of harassment went completely unchallenged; I don’t think (the teachers) ever paid any attention to sexual harassment.’

The consequences for girls who are sexually harassed or assaulted at school can be devastating. Depression and loss of self-esteem are common. If girls experience repeated sexual harassment they are significantly more likely to attempt suicide. In fact the trauma symptoms reported by adolescent girls subject to sexual harassment have been found to be similar to those descried by rape victims. Yet despite the fact that sexual harassment is shown to have a more damaging impact on victims than other forms of school bullying, teachers are less likely to intervene in incidences of the former. Why? The sexual harassment of girls is viewed as ‘normal’ behaviour for the boys. And it is precisely this naturalising of the act, this insidious complacency it elicits, which has enabled sexist bullying and harassment to flourish in classrooms across the world.

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

One thought on “The Feminist Perspective on Education (UK Focus)”

• Pingback: Feminist Perspectives on Society – A Summary Grid | ReviseSociology

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

16.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Education

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Define manifest and latent functions of education
• Explain and discuss how functionalism, conflict theory, feminism, and interactionism view issues of education

While it is clear that education plays an integral role in individuals’ lives as well as society as a whole, sociologists view that role from many diverse points of view. Functionalists believe that education equips people to perform different functional roles in society. Conflict theorists view education as a means of widening the gap in social inequality. Feminist theorists point to evidence that sexism in education continues to prevent women from achieving a full measure of social equality. Symbolic interactionists study the dynamics of the classroom, the interactions between students and teachers, and how those affect everyday life. In this section, you will learn about each of these perspectives.

Functionalism

Functionalists view education as one of the more important social institutions in a society. They contend that education contributes two kinds of functions: manifest (or primary) functions, which are the intended and visible functions of education; and latent (or secondary) functions, which are the hidden and unintended functions.

Manifest Functions

There are several major manifest functions associated with education. The first is socialization. Beginning in preschool and kindergarten, students are taught to practice various societal roles. The French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917), who established the academic discipline of sociology, characterized schools as “socialization agencies that teach children how to get along with others and prepare them for adult economic roles” (Durkheim 1898). Indeed, it seems that schools have taken on this responsibility in full.

This socialization also involves learning the rules and norms of the society as a whole. In the early days of compulsory education, students learned the dominant culture. Today, since the culture of the United States is increasingly diverse, students may learn a variety of cultural norms, not only that of the dominant culture.

School systems in the United States also transmit the core values of the nation through manifest functions like social control. One of the roles of schools is to teach students conformity to law and respect for authority. Obviously, such respect, given to teachers and administrators, will help a student navigate the school environment. This function also prepares students to enter the workplace and the world at large, where they will continue to be subject to people who have authority over them. Fulfillment of this function rests primarily with classroom teachers and instructors who are with students all day.

Education also provides one of the major methods used by people for upward social mobility. This function is referred to as social placement . College and graduate schools are viewed as vehicles for moving students closer to the careers that will give them the financial freedom and security they seek. As a result, college students are often more motivated to study areas that they believe will be advantageous on the social ladder. A student might value business courses over a class in Victorian poetry because she sees business class as a stronger vehicle for financial success.

Latent Functions

Education also fulfills latent functions. As you well know, much goes on in a school that has little to do with formal education. For example, you might notice an attractive fellow student when he gives a particularly interesting answer in class—catching up with him and making a date speaks to the latent function of courtship fulfilled by exposure to a peer group in the educational setting.

The educational setting introduces students to social networks that might last for years and can help people find jobs after their schooling is complete. Of course, with social media such as Facebook and LinkedIn, these networks are easier than ever to maintain. Another latent function is the ability to work with others in small groups, a skill that is transferable to a workplace and that might not be learned in a homeschool setting.

The educational system, especially as experienced on university campuses, has traditionally provided a place for students to learn about various social issues. There is ample opportunity for social and political advocacy, as well as the ability to develop tolerance to the many views represented on campus. In 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement swept across college campuses all over the United States, leading to demonstrations in which diverse groups of students were unified with the purpose of changing the political climate of the country.

Functionalists recognize other ways that schools educate and enculturate students. One of the most important U.S. values students in the United States learn is that of individualism—the valuing of the individual over the value of groups or society as a whole. In countries such as Japan and China, where the good of the group is valued over the rights of the individual, students do not learn as they do in the United States that the highest rewards go to the “best” individual in academics as well as athletics. One of the roles of schools in the United States is fostering self-esteem; conversely, schools in Japan focus on fostering social esteem—the honoring of the group over the individual.

In the United States, schools also fill the role of preparing students for competition in life. Obviously, athletics foster a competitive nature, but even in the classroom students compete against one another academically. Schools also fill the role of teaching patriotism. Students recite the Pledge of Allegiance each morning and take history classes where they learn about national heroes and the nation’s past.

Another role of schools, according to functionalist theory, is that of sorting , or classifying students based on academic merit or potential. The most capable students are identified early in schools through testing and classroom achievements. Such students are placed in accelerated programs in anticipation of successful college attendance.

Functionalists also contend that school, particularly in recent years, is taking over some of the functions that were traditionally undertaken by family. Society relies on schools to teach about human sexuality as well as basic skills such as budgeting and job applications—topics that at one time were addressed by the family.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theorists do not believe that public schools reduce social inequality. Rather, they believe that the educational system reinforces and perpetuates social inequalities that arise from differences in class, gender, race, and ethnicity. Where functionalists see education as serving a beneficial role, conflict theorists view it more negatively. To them, educational systems preserve the status quo and push people of lower status into obedience.

The fulfillment of one’s education is closely linked to social class. Students of low socioeconomic status are generally not afforded the same opportunities as students of higher status, no matter how great their academic ability or desire to learn. Picture a student from a working-class home who wants to do well in school. On a Monday, he’s assigned a paper that’s due Friday. Monday evening, he has to babysit his younger sister while his divorced mother works. Tuesday and Wednesday, he works stocking shelves after school until 10:00 p.m. By Thursday, the only day he might have available to work on that assignment, he’s so exhausted he can’t bring himself to start the paper. His mother, though she’d like to help him, is so tired herself that she isn’t able to give him the encouragement or support he needs. And since English is her second language, she has difficulty with some of his educational materials. They also lack a computer and printer at home, which most of his classmates have, so they have to rely on the public library or school system for access to technology. As this story shows, many students from working-class families have to contend with helping out at home, contributing financially to the family, poor study environments and a lack of support from their families. This is a difficult match with education systems that adhere to a traditional curriculum that is more easily understood and completed by students of higher social classes.

Such a situation leads to social class reproduction, extensively studied by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. He researched how cultural capital , or cultural knowledge that serves (metaphorically) as currency that helps us navigate a culture, alters the experiences and opportunities available to French students from different social classes. Members of the upper and middle classes have more cultural capital than do families of lower-class status. As a result, the educational system maintains a cycle in which the dominant culture’s values are rewarded. Instruction and tests cater to the dominant culture and leave others struggling to identify with values and competencies outside their social class. For example, there has been a great deal of discussion over what standardized tests such as the SAT truly measure. Many argue that the tests group students by cultural ability rather than by natural intelligence.

The cycle of rewarding those who possess cultural capital is found in formal educational curricula as well as in the hidden curriculum , which refers to the type of nonacademic knowledge that students learn through informal learning and cultural transmission. This hidden curriculum reinforces the positions of those with higher cultural capital and serves to bestow status unequally.

Conflict theorists point to tracking , a formalized sorting system that places students on “tracks” (advanced versus low achievers) that perpetuate inequalities. While educators may believe that students do better in tracked classes because they are with students of similar ability and may have access to more individual attention from teachers, conflict theorists feel that tracking leads to self-fulfilling prophecies in which students live up (or down) to teacher and societal expectations (Education Week 2004).

To conflict theorists, schools play the role of training working-class students to accept and retain their position as lower members of society. They argue that this role is fulfilled through the disparity of resources available to students in richer and poorer neighborhoods as well as through testing (Lauen and Tyson 2008).

IQ tests have been attacked for being biased—for testing cultural knowledge rather than actual intelligence. For example, a test item may ask students what instruments belong in an orchestra. To correctly answer this question requires certain cultural knowledge—knowledge most often held by more affluent people who typically have more exposure to orchestral music. Though experts in testing claim that bias has been eliminated from tests, conflict theorists maintain that this is impossible. These tests, to conflict theorists, are another way in which education does not provide opportunities, but instead maintains an established configuration of power.

Feminist Theory

Feminist theory aims to understand the mechanisms and roots of gender inequality in education, as well as their societal repercussions. Like many other institutions of society, educational systems are characterized by unequal treatment and opportunity for women. Almost two-thirds of the world’s 862 million illiterate people are women, and the illiteracy rate among women is expected to increase in many regions, especially in several African and Asian countries (UNESCO 2005; World Bank 2007).

Women in the United States have been relatively late, historically speaking, to be granted entry to the public university system. In fact, it wasn’t until the establishment of Title IX of the Education Amendments in 1972 that discriminating on the basis of sex in U.S. education programs became illegal. In the United States, there is also a post-education gender disparity between what male and female college graduates earn. A study released in May 2011 showed that, among men and women who graduated from college between 2006 and 2010, men out-earned women by an average of more than $5,000 each year. First-year job earnings for men averaged $33,150; for women the average was $28,000 (Godofsky, Zukin, and van Horn 2011). Similar trends are seen among salaries of professionals in virtually all industries.

When women face limited opportunities for education, their capacity to achieve equal rights, including financial independence, are limited. Feminist theory seeks to promote women’s rights to equal education (and its resultant benefits) across the world.

Sociology in the Real World

Grade inflation: when is an a really a c.

In 2019, news emerged of a criminal conspiracy regarding wealthy and, in some cases, celebrity parents who illegally secured college admission for their children. Over 50 people were implicated in the scandal, including employees from prestigious universities; several people were sentenced to prison. Their activity included manipulating test scores, falsifying students’ academic or athletic credentials, and acquiring testing accommodations through dishonest claims of having a disability.

One of the questions that emerged at the time was how the students at the subject of these efforts could succeed at these challenging and elite colleges. Meaning, if they couldn’t get in without cheating, they probably wouldn’t do well. Wouldn’t their lack of preparation quickly become clear?

Many people would say no. First, many of the students involved (the children of the conspirators) had no knowledge or no involvement of the fraud; those students may have been admitted anyway. But there may be another safeguard for underprepared students at certain universities: grade inflation.

Grade inflation generally refers to a practice of awarding students higher grades than they have earned. It reflects the observation that the relationship between letter grades and the achievements they reflect has been changing over time. Put simply, what used to be considered C-level, or average, now often earns a student a B, or even an A.

Some, including administrators at elite universities, argue that grade inflation does not exist, or that there are other factors at play, or even that it has benefits such as increased funding and elimination of inequality (Boleslavsky 2014). But the evidence reveals a stark change. Based on data compiled from a wide array of four-year colleges and universities, a widely cited study revealed that the number of A grades has been increasing by several percentage points per decade, and that A’s were the most common grade awarded (Jaschik 2016). In an anecdotal case, a Harvard dean acknowledged that the median grade there was an A-, and the most common was also an A. Williams College found that the number of A+ grades had grown from 212 instances in 2009-10 to 426 instances in 2017-18 (Berlinsky-Schine 2020). Princeton University took steps to reduce inflation by limiting the number of A’s that could be issued, though it then reversed course (Greason 2020).

Why is this happening? Some cite the alleged shift toward a culture that rewards effort instead of product, i.e., the amount of work a student puts in raises the grade, even if the resulting product is poor quality. Another oft-cited contributor is the pressure for instructors to earn positive course evaluations from their students. Finally, many colleges may accept a level of grade inflation because it works. Analysis and formal experiments involving graduate school admissions and hiring practices showed that students with higher grades are more likely to be selected for a job or a grad school. And those higher-grade applicants are still preferred even if decision-maker knows that the applicant’s college may be inflating grades (Swift 2013). In other words, people with high GPA at a school with a higher average GPA are preferred over people who have a high GPA at a school with a lower average GPA.

Ironically, grade inflation is not simply a college issue. Many of the same college faculty and administrators who encounter or engage in some level of grade inflation may lament that it is also occurring at high schools (Murphy 2017).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism sees education as one way that labeling theory is seen in action. A symbolic interactionist might say that this labeling has a direct correlation to those who are in power and those who are labeled. For example, low standardized test scores or poor performance in a particular class often lead to a student who is labeled as a low achiever. Such labels are difficult to “shake off,” which can create a self-fulfilling prophecy (Merton 1968).

In his book High School Confidential , Jeremy Iversen details his experience as a Stanford graduate posing as a student at a California high school. One of the problems he identifies in his research is that of teachers applying labels that students are never able to lose. One teacher told him, without knowing he was a bright graduate of a top university, that he would never amount to anything (Iversen 2006). Iversen obviously didn’t take this teacher’s false assessment to heart. But when an actual seventeen-year-old student hears this from a person with authority over her, it’s no wonder that the student might begin to “live down to” that label.

The labeling with which symbolic interactionists concern themselves extends to the very degrees that symbolize completion of education. Credentialism embodies the emphasis on certificates or degrees to show that a person has a certain skill, has attained a certain level of education, or has met certain job qualifications. These certificates or degrees serve as a symbol of what a person has achieved, and allows the labeling of that individual.

Indeed, as these examples show, labeling theory can significantly impact a student’s schooling. This is easily seen in the educational setting, as teachers and more powerful social groups within the school dole out labels that are adopted by the entire school population.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/16-2-theoretical-perspectives-on-education

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

27 Feminist Philosophy and Education

Nel Noddings is Lee Jacks Professor of Education Emerita, Stanford University. Her latest books are Critical Lessons: What Our Schools Should Teach (2006) and When School Reform Goes Wrong (2007).

• Published: 02 January 2010
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This article examines feminist approaches to the philosophy of education. It suggests that the philosophy of education should be an ideal domain for the analysis and application of feminist philosophy. It discusses John Dewey's opinion that there is a sense in which philosophy is the philosophy of education and that our schools should be mini-societies that reflect our best conception of what our larger society should be. It highlights the efforts of feminists to upgrade first generation ideas on liberal feminism.

Over the last thirty years, feminist philosophy has grown in quantity, if not in influence. Its growth has followed (roughly) the three generations of feminist thought described by Julia Kristeva ( 1982 ). In the first, emphasis is placed on women's oppression, and equality with men is the main goal. In the second, concentration is on women's agency, and questions are raised about uncritical assimilation into the male world. In the third, feminist philosophers critique previous generations of thought, and suggest new (or defend old) patterns of thought. These categories are better interpreted as centers of concentration than as “generations” because we find them scattered across the decades of activity in feminism. In what follows, I use this structure to organize the chapter. I use the last section to concentrate on feminist critiques in philosophy of education.

1. Women's Oppression

Feminist scholars treat a great variety of topics, but the issue of women's oppression and long struggle for equality is of central importance. It may, indeed, be regarded as the defining feature of feminism. The history of feminist philosophy confirms this interest, but it also reveals conflicts that have arisen from feminist commitments. A pessimist might describe the pursuit of feminist philosophy as a no‐win project. In fact, Margaret Urban Walker ( 2005 ) has recently made comments to that effect. A woman who chooses to do feminist philosophy may find herself rejected as a philosopher.

There have always been women philosophers. (See the four‐volume history of women philosophers edited by Mary Ellen Waithe, 1987 , 1989, 1991, 1995; see also a special issue on American women philosophers in Hypatia , Spring 2004 .) But for the most part, they have been ignored in their own period, co‐opted by male writers, and discarded entirely over time. Walker comments on the fate of Diotima, reputedly the teacher of Socrates: “she did not just disappear from the history of philosophy. She was reduced to a figment of that great man's imagination” (2005, p. 155). We will probably never know whether Diotima was a real person.

For today's women philosophers, a conflict arises in the choice to do feminist philosophy. Walker says of it, “It is a kind of philosophy, not a female or feminine activity,” and it “is a method, not a topic” (2005, p. 157). But there is little agreement on this. Some women philosophers are analytic philosophers, and for them feminist philosophy is more a set of topics than a method. (See the special issue of Hypatia devoted to analytic feminism, Fall 2005 .) Clearly, there are also feminist existentialists and pragmatists as well. Insofar as it is a method in itself—like, say, existentialism or pragmatism—it runs the same risk as other methods, that of relative isolation as a specialty, but the risk is enormously increased by the fact that most of its practitioners are women.

There are, however, excellent examples of feminist philosophy as method. One of the best known is “standpoint epistemology” (Harding 1996 ; Hartsock 1983 ; Hekman 1997 ). As method, standpoint epistemology holds that we get nearer to a true objectivity if we look at phenomena and situations through a variety of perspectives. We should give up the faulty, largely fictitious notion of a neutral or universal perspective. As one perspective in the category of standpoint epistemology, feminist epistemology looks at the world through the eyes of women. This does not in itself imply a loss of “objectivity” because it admits at the outset that, to achieve objectivity (if that is possible), we need the perspectives of all stake holders.

Still, there are problems. In educational philosophy, Barbara Thayer‐Bacon ( 2000 ) has given a useful and persuasive account of standpoint theory and the difficulties it faces. In particular, it risks re‐inscribing some of the features found so objectionable in traditional philosophy, such as privileging certain voices within the feminist community. How can anyone speak from the standpoint of all women? It is an open question whether these difficulties can be avoided. For present purposes, feminist standpoint epistemology offers an example of feminist philosophy as method . It is not a set of topics.

There is some risk, too, in rejecting the notion that feminist philosophy is a female activity. Thirty years ago, as feminist theory got a new start, feminist scholars often talked about solidarity with other women; they pledged themselves to interdisciplinary work within academe and to social efforts in the larger community. However, this is not the way to get ahead in universities, and women scholars had to blend their feminist work with approved specialties in other fields. They were challenged with the question: Are you a scholar or an activist? Answering that question changed the tone of feminist studies.

An important element of solidarity has remained among feminist philosophers within the academy. Black feminists have contributed to both liberal and radical feminist philosophy. (See, for example, Patricia Hill Collins 1990 , 1995 ; also the essays by Kimberle Williams Crenshaw and bell hooks in Meyers 1997 .) Their work has influenced the direction of discussions not only on race and equality but also on family, community, and schooling (Walker 1996 ).

The struggle with the question—scholar or activist?—helps to explain why so much feminist philosophy falls into the category of social or political philosophy. Much of this work has helped to keep the original feminist commitment alive. Alison Jaggar, for example, has described feminism as political philosophy. She notes that “feminist political philosophers…use both traditional and nontraditional categories in attempting to describe and evaluate women's experience” (1983, p. 7). Issues concerning childbirth, love, maternal work, childcare, and sexuality are brought into philosophical discourse. “By seeking to extend the traditional domain of political philosophy, contemporary feminism challenges both existing political theories and our conception of political philosophy itself” (Jaggar 1983 , p. 7). This line of thinking remains strong today. Feminist philosophers may, for example, identify themselves as Marxist, liberal, radical, or socialist (Tuana and Tong 1995 ).

The effects of this work have been felt across disciplinary lines. Feminist theologians, nursing theorists, historians, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and legal theorists have all contributed to the analysis of human life as embodied in women (Noddings 1990 ). However, the real social effects seem to emerge primarily from the social sciences. In a recent comprehensive work on women's well‐being, there is no sign of influence from feminist philosophy (Bianchi, Casper, and King 2005 ), and a check of the indexes of books in political philosophy often reveals mention of “children's rights” or “families” but rarely anything on women, feminism, or bodies of any sort.

That said, there does appear to be a revival of interest in creatural existence within philosophy, and philosophers of education have contributed to this literature (O'Loughlin 2006 ). One feature of this revival is increased attention to emotions and everyday life in education (Boler 1999 ; Noddings 2003b ). Questions have been raised about the traditional curriculum and why it is virtually devoid of topics that have been central to women's lives (Martin 1984 , 1985 , 1992 ; Noddings 1992/2005 , 2006a ).

Feminist philosophy has also exerted considerable influence through critiques of traditional philosophy. Susan Moller Okin ( 1979 ) has given us accounts of male philosophers who supported women's equality and of others who spoke powerfully against it. Her critique of Rousseau is especially important for educators. For years, it was not unusual for philosophers of education to extol Rousseau as the philosopher of freedom and his Emile as the book that describes an appropriate education for free citizens. However, one could hardly hold this view unreservedly after reading Book 5 of Emile . In that book, Rousseau advocates an education for Sophie that should keep her subservient to Emile. She is not to think for herself, and she is to be both sexually alluring and chaste—“both virgin and prostitute” (Okin 1979 , p. 101).

Critiques of science have also been prominent in feminist philosophy. The most convincing acknowledge the enormous success of science while noting its domination by males and male thinking. Evelyn Fox Keller puts it well in describing two different discourses on science: “One an increasingly radical critique that fails to account for the effectiveness of science, and the other a justification that draws confidence from that effectiveness to maintain a traditional, and essentially unchanged, philosophy of science” (1985, p. 6).

From this perspective, several goals for feminist philosophy of science might be established: (1) to open scientific fields to women; (2) to show how science might be improved by expanding its methods; (3) to transform the scientific description of women and women's experience; and (4) to encourage interdisciplinary work within the sciences and between science and the humanities.

Jane Roland Martin ( 1985 ), concentrating specifically on education in her critiques, also gives us a devastating evaluation of Rousseau's recommendations for women's education. In addition to critiques of Rousseau, Plato, Wollstonecraft, Beecher, and Gilman, Martin is particularly interested in the connection between feminist theory and philosophy of education. If we are serious about education for human life, why in our curriculum planning do we persist in ignoring topics and activities central to female lives?

I, too, have discussed this question (Noddings 1992/2005 , 2006a ). For example, I have offered an analysis of evil from the perspective of women (Noddings 1989 ). It is clear, however, that this is a woman's view and not that of all women. Women have suffered for centuries under a succession of myths fabricated by men, myths blaming the origin of evil on women—on Pandora, Eve, witches, and lamias. Ridding religion of these pernicious myths is crucially important (Daly 1974 ), and philosophers and educators should give more attention to the sort of religious education that might accomplish this (Noddings 1993 ). Moreover, without the distraction and mystification of theological views of evil, we might look more clearly at the human condition and work toward the reduction of moral evil.

Feminist commitment to the alleviation of suffering and the elimination of oppression has led quite naturally to a concern for the welfare of other oppressed groups. Feminist philosophers are actively engaged in the identification and analysis of the oppression experienced by racial minorities, the disabled, and homosexuals. See, for example, special issues of Hypatia devoted to race: 22, no. 2 (Spring 2007 ); to maternal bodies 21, no. 1 (Winter 2006 ).

This is commendable, but it triggers another conflict for feminists. If we work for the elimination of such a wide range of oppression, will we thereby dilute efforts to improve the condition of women as a specific group? This was the dilemma faced by feminists during and after the Civil War. Having worked hard for the abolition of slavery, feminists were then betrayed when politicians decided to push for the voting rights of black men and postpone consideration of women's suffrage (Ward and Burns 1999 ). Neither Elizabeth Cady Stanton nor Susan B. Anthony lived to see the justice they had worked for so many years to achieve.

Most feminists today defend decisions to work against all forms of oppression. They do this in full knowledge that even today women earn only 75 percent of what equally qualified men earn for roughly the same work, and we still do most of the housework and childcare. Women are still discriminated against in religious institutions that would collapse without their support. Of all groups, perhaps, women are the most complicit in our own oppression. The reason for this docility is probably that there are rewards as well as penalties in women's subservience, and many white women in the Western world—certainly most of those writing about oppression—are reasonably well‐off economically. When others are suffering so much more obviously, it is hard to push one's own case, but this is a continuing dilemma for feminists.

Still another dilemma for feminists trying to overcome women's oppression is the question of how to fit into the world created by men. Much of feminist philosophy has its roots in liberal philosophy, and one of its main aims is to achieve equality for women. In education, there has been a steady and largely successful campaign to increase the participation of women at all levels of education but, again, the outcomes are not all rosy. Insisting on the inclusion of women in social studies texts, for example, has resulted in an “add women and stir” approach. The test for inclusion seems to be whether any woman, however obscure, has contributed anything to the activities dominated by men. This is very different from changing the curriculum to include tasks and interests traditionally associated with women. The male‐structured curriculum remains, and women are fitted into paragraphs here and there.

This observation reminds us of a deeper, more lasting conflict. The problem was posed in the 1930s by Virginia Woolf. On the one hand, Woolf wanted to increase opportunities for women in the public world. She prescribed a “room of one's own” for women writers, and confessed to killing that obsequious creature, the Angel in the House. But she worried about the sort of world women would perpetuate if they joined the procession of educated men:

Do we wish to join that procession, or don't we? On what terms shall we join the procession? Above all, where is it leading us, the procession of educated men?…What is this “civilization”? What are these ceremonies and why should we take part in them? What are these professions and why should we make money out of them? Where in short is it leading us, the procession of the sons of educated men? (1938/1966, pp. 62–63)

Her questions still trouble us.

2. Women's Agency

Although women have suffered (and still suffer) oppression, they have also exercised agency, and historians have led the way in bringing attention to women's agency (Beard 1946/1962 ; Kerber 1997 ). In philosophy, women's agency often appears in views that develop a distinctive way of approaching social problems. Taking Woolf's questions seriously, these views seek a transformation of the society in which women will be equal partners and citizens (Offen 1988 ).

The ethic of care (Held 1995 ; Noddings 1984/2003 ) is an example of feminist philosophy that recognizes the dignity and moral importance of women's traditional work and uses it to articulate an alternative approach to moral life and thought. Relation, response to needs, familial care, and social responsibility were all elements of eighteenth‐and nineteenth‐century women's movements. Wollstonecraft ( 1792/1975 ) argued for the rights of women (particularly with respect to education), partly on the grounds that women would be better wives and mothers if they had better education. Similarly, Ellen Key (see Offen 1988 ) argued for state support for all mothers, and the great suffragists of Britain and the United States often emphasized women's sensitivity to human need as a reason to accord voting rights to women. Besides the standard suffragist arguments for extending the vote (equality, representation), advocates argued strongly that the moral orientation of women would bring a more humane and sensitive approach to public life. Most of us today reject the idea that women are morally superior to men, just as we reject the centuries‐old claim that preceded it: that women are morally inferior because of some lack in reasoning power. But, that caveat aside, it is a fact that there is a measurable gap between men and women on social issues; women, in general, do vote more liberally on social issues than men. Still, neither the utopian improvement predicted by feminists nor the rational disaster predicted by misogynists has come to pass.

Formal articulation of an ethic of care began in the 1980s—in psychology (Gilligan 1982 ), philosophy (Noddings 1984 / 2003 ), nursing (Watson 1979 ), and sociology (Waerness 1984 ). Interestingly, none of these writers seemed aware of each other's work at the time of initial writing. An intellectual history of caring and care ethics cannot be undertaken here, but it is important to note that the work was interdisciplinary from the start. By the late 1980s, scholars writing on the ethic of care recognized and drew on one another's work.

My own work was strongly influenced by the relational philosophy of Martin Buber ( 1958 / 1970 , 1965 ), and it was some time after the publication of Caring ( 1984 / 2003 ) that I became aware of feminist connections. In contrast, Sara Ruddick ( 1989 ) acknowledges the influence of many feminists, among them Jean Baker Miller ( 1976 ), Nancy Chodorow ( 1978 ), Adrienne Rich ( 1976 ), Dorothy Dinnerstein ( 1976 ), Iris Murdoch ( 1970 ), and Simone Weil ( 1977 ).

The publication of Gilligan's In a Different Voice ( 1982 ) triggered a wide range of debate. Questions were asked about the gender differences suggested by the study, and a lively debate arose over the perceived conflict between justice and caring. Both Ruddick and I explicitly stated that men are capable of caring and of maternal thinking, and Gilligan was careful to point out that, although the care‐response was discovered in interviews with women, this did not imply that it is the exclusive property of women. Some of us now think that we were too quick to downplay gender differences and that much more should be done in this area.

Current thinking acknowledges the need for both justice and caring (Katz, Noddings, and Strike 1999 ; Tronto 1993 ), but interesting questions remain. Which is primary? Must they be applied in different domains? Are they reasonably applied in phases? I have argued that caring provides the foundation for a sense of justice (Noddings 2002b ), and Okin's critique of Rawls implies a similar claim (Okin 1989 ). We can ask also whether decisions made using principles of justice leave important human concerns unfinished. For example, if the firing of a teacher is justified on principle, is there no further moral obligation to that teacher? I have argued that, in many such cases, caring picks up where justice leaves off.

A division of application by domain—public or private sphere—is not convincing. Feminist philosophers have shown both that caring is useful in the public domain and that justice is applicable in the private domain (Held 1993 ; Tronto 1993 ). The key point for application of caring‐for is direct contact between the carer and the cared‐for. This requirement limits both opportunity and obligation. If we are not in a position to receive the response of the cared‐for, there can be no caring relation. However, we can care‐about others when there is no direct contact, and this caring‐about may be guided by principles of justice. But it must be guided also by the intention to establish or maintain conditions under which caring‐for can take place.

For the past few years, a lively discussion has been conducted over the connection between care ethics and virtue ethics (Noddings 2000 , 2006b ; Sander‐Staudt 2006 ; Slote 2000 ). The two are similar in several respects. Both put little emphasis on rules and principles as guides to moral action. Virtue ethics looks to the character of moral agents; care ethics depends on an ethical ideal of caring that is constructed over years of acting as one‐caring. But a difference emerges even here. Care ethics puts emphasis on natural caring that requires no moral effort on the part of carers. In natural caring, we respond as carers because we are genuinely moved by the needs of the cared‐for and want to respond to them. Effort—sometimes great effort—may be required in meeting the needs, but no moral effort is required as motivation.

When the motivation of natural caring fails, ethical caring must be summoned, and how effectively this can be done depends on the strength of the ideal of caring present in the carer. On this, care ethics and virtue ethics agree; only the terminology differs. However, another difference appears. An agent acting on ethical caring may act as though she would act in natural caring, but she has an additional task and that is to exercise whatever virtues are needed to restore conditions that will support natural caring. Virtually all of us prefer to be cared‐for, or treated well, out of love or concern. We are made uneasy by generous acts done out of duty or righteousness. Ethical caring is admirable, even necessary, but it poses a risk to caring relations. The carer's attention is too concentrated on herself.

Both care ethics and virtue ethics recognize caring as a virtue, but care ethics anchors the virtue in the caring relation. Someone who regularly establishes caring relations may be said to exhibit the virtue of caring. He or she may rightly be said to be a caring person. In a caring relation, both carer and cared‐for contribute. The cared‐for must recognize the efforts of the carer as caring in order to complete the relation. No matter how great the carer's efforts, if the cared‐for does not recognize those efforts, there is no caring relation. This does not mean that the would‐be carer deserves no moral credit for her efforts. It means that something has gone wrong; it may be the fault of the carer, of the cared‐for, or of the situation in which they find themselves. In teaching, the situation is often at fault. Teachers try to care, and students claim that they want care, but there are no caring relations (Noddings 2006b ). I'll return to this problem in the last section, when we look at the contributions of philosophy of education to feminist philosophy.

Care ethics and virtue ethics also agree that it is impossible for any moral agent to care for everyone. An early criticism of my version of caring claimed that it was provincial, too tightly tied to the inner or family circle. This arose mainly through a misunderstanding. I said—and still insist—that we cannot care‐for everyone; caring‐for requires direct contact, some means of receiving a response of recognition from the cared‐for. But this does not mean that we cannot care‐about strangers and people at a distance, and I believe that we often have an obligation to care‐about others. Slote ( 1998 ) approaches this difficult problem by prescribing “balanced caring”—caring‐for (and caring‐about) those close to us and also for distant others whose needs have come to our attention. Care ethics speaks of caring‐for in direct encounters and caring‐about in cases where no direct encounter is possible. But once again, care ethicists are guided by the perceived need to work toward conditions under which caring‐for can flourish. It is not enough, for example, to pay for food that may or may not reach the hungry. We must somehow evaluate the effects of our efforts, and even getting food to the hungry is not enough; we have to ask what might be done to establish conditions under which fewer such emergencies will occur. Probably, virtue and care ethicists are largely in agreement on this.

Some critics argue that care theory needs to say more about the obligation to care (Engster 2005 ). This is true, but it must be done with caution. Slote ( 1998 ) handles this problem carefully in his discussion of balanced caring. Attempts to define the distribution of our caring duties more closely may actually warp the underlying conception of care. Caring as a moral orientation, described phenomenologically, contains an embedded concept of obligation—to respond to those who address us. It is—like every thoughtful conception of obligation—loaded with conflicts, and these should be discussed, but there can be no formula (within care theory) to eliminate them.

Recently, some writers have argued that caring should be redefined as a practice. As such, it can be said to have particular aims (Engster 2005 ). This strikes some of us as dangerous, because what is actually done by carers differs not only across cultures but, more basically, across situations and individuals (Okin 2003 ). In the attempt to redefine caring as a practice instead of a moral orientation, the deepest contributions of care theory may inadvertently be lost. Caring may be reduced to caregiving or caretaking.

This move—to describe caring as a practice—may indeed aggravate fears expressed earlier by feminist critics who worried that an emphasis on caring valorizes a genderized virtue and may thus lead to the continued exploitation of women. This objection to care ethics was raised early on at an APA symposium on Caring. Thoughtful comments along these lines were made by Claudia Card, Barbara Houston, and Sarah Hoagland (see the account in Hypatia 5, no.1 [Spring 1990 ]). It seemed to be answered by clarifying caring as a moral orientation, not simply a series of caregiving acts. But another answer is to teach boys as well as girls to engage in the practices associated with caring so that the orientation may develop in both. Feminist philosophers rightly want to avoid an Aristotelian position on virtue—one that separates male and female virtues, elevating the male over the female. This concern illustrates again a persistent difference between liberal feminism and the more radical feminism of care theory. With Virginia Woolf, we are ambivalent about joining the procession of educated men without changing the destination of the procession.

Part of the debate between virtue ethics and care ethics appears in discussions of Confucianism. Again, there are striking similarities. Both put great emphasis on relationships (Herr 2003 ; Star 2002 ). But the requirements of caring in Confucianism are governed more by formal relationships than by the encounter, address, and response of care ethics. Daniel Star notes “that Confucian ethics is better thought of as a virtue ethics than a care ethics” ( 2002 , p. 98). He argues strongly for the distinctiveness of care ethics. In contrast, Chenyang Li ( 1994 ) supports some virtue ethicists in analyzing care ethics as a type of virtue ethics. Henry Rosemont ( 1997 ), too, declares that Confucian ethics is compatible with feminist ethics, primarily because of their common interest in social relationships. Probably most care theorists agree with Star that the difference in approaches to relationships makes the two ethics distinct.

One important similarity between Confucian and care ethics is their emphasis on the motivational importance of emotion or feeling. The work of Mencius underscores the basic role of commiseration in moral life. His famous example of the response of observers to the plight of a child about to fall into a well is meant to illustrate how “good” human beings react directly to perceived need. They do not consult principles, nor do they refer to formal relationships; they leap to save the child.

3. Critiques and Applications in Philosophy of Education

Philosophy of education should be an ideal domain for the analysis and application of feminist philosophy. As Dewey pointed out years ago, there is a sense in which philosophy is philosophy of education, and he also suggested that our schools should be mini‐societies that reflect our best conception of what our larger society should be. For an introduction to feminist philosophy of education, readers might consult the volume edited by Lynda Stone ( 1994 ). This collection of classic pieces includes work on self and identity, education and schooling, knowledge and curriculum, teaching and pedagogy, and diversity and multiculturalism.

Woolf's concern about joining the procession of educated men is especially pertinent in education itself. It seems clear that educators and policymakers have addressed the concern with an enthusiastic endorsement of women's inclusion in the affairs of men. Most of our colleges and universities are now co‐educational, and in high school girls now outnumber boys in advanced mathematics classes. These seem to be positive steps, and liberal feminists see much to celebrate. Radical feminists and care theorists, however, express some reservations.

Liberal feminists are concerned, of course, by the continuing wage gap between women and men, and they deplore the paucity of women at the highest levels of business and government. They are also troubled by the sexism and violence suffered by women in the military. Their basic mission is to achieve equality in the man‐made world.

Feminist philosophers of education have raised questions about the single‐minded drive for equality. When the curriculum is constructed entirely around the knowledge arising from male experience, women are excluded even if they are allowed to participate (Martin 1982 ). The traditional activities and concerns of women do not appear in the curriculum. Where, for example, do we find parenting, making a home, love, marriage, and caregiving? Educators have long regarded such topics as nonintellectual—things to be learned with ease at home—but feminist philosophers of education have pointed out that these topics can be as intellectually challenging as any others and have the added merit of addressing the problems of real life (Noddings 1984 / 2003 , 2003 , 2006a ). We are not even close to achieving a gender‐inclusive curriculum.

How should gender be treated in educational theory and practice? (On this question, see the probing analyses in Diller, Houston, Morgan, and Ayim, 1996 .) A gender‐blind approach would, by default to the status quo, be an approach constructed by and for males—technically open to both males and females without discrimination. Thinking of this sort led to questions about why women lagged behind men in mathematics and science. The accepted answer was discrimination , and the remedy was to encourage—even push—young women to take more math and science courses in high school and college. Policymakers and educators, eager to escape the charge of discrimination, did not think to ask what young women are interested in, what they want to do. At the secondary‐school level, the goal has been accomplished; more girls than boys are taking advanced math classes. However, girls still score significantly lower on the math SAT, and they now score somewhat lower on the verbal SAT as well.

A worry arises that girls are being pushed into subjects that may not hold great interest for them and discouraged from following occupational lines at which they might excel. This is not a simple matter. Thoughtful people welcome expanding opportunities for girls, but “opportunity” sometimes becomes “coercion.” It is one thing to encourage girls who are interested and talented in mathematics; it is quite another to suggest that intelligent girls are “too good” for literature, early childhood education, or social work.

A fundamental problem, as Morwenna Griffiths ( 2006 ) has pointed out, is a hegemonic masculinity. That hegemony continues to dominate educational thought and practice, as it dominates all of public life. Consider, for example, the everyday matter of dress. It is entirely acceptable today for a woman to wear pants suits in professional settings. It is close to unthinkable for a man to appear at the office in skirt, blouse, pearls, and high heels. It is more acceptable for a woman to act like a man than for a man to act like a woman. The goal should not be to reverse this hegemony, nor should it be to forge a gender‐neutral society. The philosophical problem is to analyze attributes of both traditions, identify what is humanly excellent in each, and suggest ways in which we can learn from one another. Some work along these lines has been discussed by Rhoads and Calderone ( 2007 ) with respect to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students, but not with respect to women as a dominated group.

Seeking a healthy convergence, we might return to concerns about the career opportunities proffered to high school students. Policymakers worried that girls were “lagging behind” boys in mathematics, but they expressed no concern that boys rarely choose careers in the so‐called caring professions. Nor is there great concern that salaries in those professions continue to lag behind those in the traditionally male professions. The issues here are complicated, but the initial impetus for feminist studies in academe—solidarity with our sisters—seems to have been lost or, at least, weakened. Now it is to the advantage of successful women to have poorly paid women clean their houses and care for their children.

A problem that can be identified in much of the preceding discussion is the conundrum of difference. Physical differences exist. But gender , in contrast to sex, is a social construct, and difference in the context of gender has always been defined as difference from the masculine norm. Difference, as Catherine MacKinnon ( 1987 ) has so forcefully argued, is a sign of and a product of dominance. However, there are gender differences that are products of centuries of cultural evolution, and some of these—extended maternal love, for example—are rooted in biology. Thus, it might be wiser to work toward the elimination of unfounded hierarchy in discussions of difference than to ignore difference entirely. When a difference is identified, it is beneficial to ask whether each element has its place or whether one is likely to contribute more to human well‐being. MacKinnon is right that, historically, gender differences have been decided a priori in favor of males. Not nearly enough work is being done by philosophers of education on the conceptual problems associated with gender differences.

Feminist philosophy of education has had some influence through care ethics on moral education. It might be expected that because of the similarities between care ethics and virtue ethics, moral education from the care perspective would have much in common with character education (Noddings and Slote 2003 ). The potential is there (see Slote, this volume). What stands in the way is character education's longstanding practice of trying to teach the virtues directly. First, since the time of Socrates, doubts have been raised about the possibility of doing this. But, second, care theory probes beneath the surface of the named virtues to find what supports them. For example, I have asked the question: Are the virtues always virtuous? (Noddings 2002a ). Slote ( 1992 ) is also interested in what lies behind the various virtues, but his purpose is primarily to develop a stronger foundation for virtue ethics. We agree (I think) that the underlying test for a virtuous act is its intention, coupled with its effect in bringing harm or good to other people.

One model of moral education based on care ethics involves modeling, dialogue, practice, and confirmation (Noddings 1984 / 2003 , 2002a ). The first element, modeling, is common in most schemes of moral education. Teachers must show , in their own conduct, the ways in which they want students to behave. Dialogue has several purposes. It is through dialogue that teachers come to know their students, and it is in dialogue that teachers raise questions, suggest possibilities, and guide students toward moral thinking. Practice gives students opportunities to employ the moral knowledge and skills discussed. Dialogue and practice working together may be considered acts of induction as Martin Hoffman ( 2000 ) has described it. The purpose is to develop a capacity for empathy (see Slote, this volume) or, as expressed by care theorists, for engrossment or receptive attention. Finally, the care model posits confirmation , a teacher's continuing efforts to help students realize their own best selves.

The first three elements have been widely accepted in moral education (Charney 1992 ; Stengel and Tom 2006 ; Watson 2003 ), but confirmation is rarely mentioned. I have described confirmation as “one of the loveliest ideas in moral life” (Noddings 2006a , p. 113). To recognize in another a better self struggling to realize itself is indeed a lovely act. But confirmation cannot be done by formula; it is not a strategy. To confirm another, we need to know that other reasonably well. It requires the establishment of caring relations. Philosophers of education are now giving considerable attention to the importance of relations in teaching (Bingham and Sidorkin 2004 ; Johnston 2006 ; Sidorkin 2002 ; Thayer‐Bacon 2000 ).

Summing up what we have reviewed in feminist philosophy and philosophy of education—and with the understanding that reasonable people may differ on what they see in looking at the field—it seems that feminists are concentrating now on upgrading “first generation” ideas on liberal feminism and equality. Radical feminism and agency are still discussed, but much attention seems to be directed at equality in professional life, multicultural problems, and problems of sexual minorities. This is much needed work, but the trend is reminiscent of what happened to mid‐nineteenth‐century feminists: a morally driven delay in the development of feminist ideas that might transform the whole social/political domain.

Beard, Mary R. ( 1946 /1962). Woman as a force in history . New York: Collier Books.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Bianchi, Suzanne , Lynne M. Casper , and Rosalind Berkowitz King (Eds.). ( 2005 ). Work, family, health, and well‐being . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bingham, Charles , and Alexander Sidorkin (Eds.). ( 2004 ). No education without relation . New York: Peter Lang.

Boler, Megan . ( 1999 ). Feeling and reason in the arts . New York: Routledge.

Buber, Martin . ( 1958 /1970). I and Thou , trans. by Walter Kaufmann . New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

—— ( 1965 ). Between man and man . New York: Macmillan.

Charney, Ruth . ( 1992 ). Teaching children to care. Greenfield, MA: Northeast Foundation for Children.

Chodorow, Nancy . ( 1978 ). The reproduction of mothering . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Collins, Patricia Hill . ( 1990 ). Black feminist thought . Boston: Unwin Hyman.

—— ( 1995 ). Black women and motherhood. In Justice and care , ed. Virginia Held (pp. 117–38). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Daly, Mary . ( 1974 ). Beyond God the father . Boston: Beacon Press.

Diller, Ann , Barbara Houston , Kathryn Pauly Morgan , and Maryann Ayim . ( 1996 ). The gender question in education . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Dinnerstein, Dorothy . ( 1976 ). The mermaid and minotaur: Sexual arrangements and human malaise . New York: Harper.

Engster, Daniel . ( 2005 ). Rethinking care theory: The practice of caring and the obligation to care.   Hypatia 20(3): 50–74.

Gilligan, Carol J. ( 1982 ). In a different voice . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Griffiths, Morwenna . ( 2006 ). The feminization of teaching and the practice of teaching.   Educational Theory 56(4): 387–405.

Harding, Sandra . ( 1996 ). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In Feminist epistemologies , ed. Linda Alcoff and E. Potter (pp. 49–82). New York: Routledge.

Hartsock, Nancy . ( 1983 ). The feminist standpoint: Developing the grounds for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In Discovering reality , ed. S. Harding and M. B. Hintikka (pp. 283–310). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

Hekman, Susan J. ( 1997 ). Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited.   Signs 22(2): 341–65. 10.1086/495159

Held, Virginia . ( 1993 ). Feminist morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

—— (Ed.). ( 1995 ). Justice and care . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Herr, Ranjoo Seodu . ( 2003 ). Is Confucianism compatible with care ethics?   Philosophy East and West 53(4): 471–89. 10.1353/pew.2003.0039

Hoffman, Martin . ( 2000 ). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hypatia . ( 1990 , Spring). Symposium on carin g . Hypatia 5(1): 101–26.

—— ( 2004 , Spring). Special issue: Women in the American philosophical tradition 1800–1930. Hypatia 19(2).

—— (2005, Fall). Special issue: Analytic feminism. Hypatia 20(4).

—— ( 2006 , Winter). Special issue: Maternal bodies.   Hypatia 21(1).

—— (2007, Spring). Special issue: The reproduction of whiteness: Race and the regulation of the gendered body. Hypatia 22(2).

Jaggar, Alison, M. ( 1983 ). Feminist politics and human nature . Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

Johnston, D. Kay ( 2006 ). Education for a caring society . New York: Teachers College Press.

Katz, Michael , Nel Noddings , and Kenneth Strike (Eds.). ( 1999 ). Justice and caring: The search for common ground in education . New York: Teachers College Press.

Keller, Evelyn Fox . ( 1985 ). Reflections on gender and science . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kerber, Linda . ( 1997 ). Toward an intellectual history of women . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Kristeva, Julia . ( 1982 ). Women's time. In Feminist theory: A critique of ideology , ed. N. O. Keohane , M. Z. Rosaldo , and B. C. Gelpi (pp. 31–54). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Li, Chenyang . ( 1994 ). The Confucian concept of jen and the feminist ethics of care: A comparative study.   Hypatia 9(1): 70–89.

MacKinnon, Catherine A. ( 1987 ). Feminism unmodified . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Martin, Jane Roland . ( 1982 ). Excluding women from the educational realm.   Harvard Educational Review 52(2): 133–48.

—— ( 1984 ). Bringing women into educational thought . Educational Theory 34(4): 341–54.

—— ( 1985 ). Reclaiming a conversation . New Haven: Yale University Press.

—— ( 1992 ). The schoolhome: Rethinking schools for changing families . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Meyers, Diana Tietjens . (Ed.). ( 1997 ). Feminist social thought: A reader . New York: Routledge.

Miller, Jean Baker . ( 1976 ). Toward a new psychology of women . Boston: Beacon Press.

Murdoch, Iris . ( 1970 ). The sovereignty of good. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Noddings, Nel . ( 1984 /2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education , 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.

—— ( 1989 ). Women and evil . Berkeley: University of California Press.

—— ( 1990 ). Feminist critiques in the professions. In Review of research in education 16 , ed. Courtney B. Cazden (pp. 393–424). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

—— ( 1993 ). Educating for intelligent belief or unbelief . New York: Teachers College Press.

—— ( 2000 ). Two concepts of caring. In Philosophy of Education 1999 , ed. Randall Curren (pp. 36–39). Urbana‐Champaign: University of Illinois.

—— ( 2002 a). Educating moral people . New York: Teachers College Press.

—— ( 2002 b). Starting at home: Caring and social policy . Berkeley: University of California Press.

—— ( 2003 ). Happiness and education . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—— ( 1992 /2005). The challenge to care in schools , 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

—— ( 2006 a). Critical lessons: What our schools should teach . New York: Cambridge University Press.

—— ( 2006 b). Caring as relation and virtue in teaching. In Working virtue: Virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems , ed. Rebecca Walker and Philip J. Ivanhoe (pp. 41–60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Noddings, Nel, and Michael Slote. ( 2003 ). Changing notions of the moral and of moral education. In The Blackwell guide to philosophy of education , ed. Nigel Blake , Paul Smeyers , Richard Smith , and Paul Standish (pp. 341–55). Oxford: Blackwell.

Offen, Karen . ( 1988 ). Defining feminism: A comparative historical approach.   Signs 14(1): 119–57. 10.1086/494494

Okin, Susan Moller . ( 1979 ). Women in Western political thought . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

—— ( 1989 ). Reason and feeling in thinking about justice.   Ethics 99(2): 229–49. 10.1086/293064

—— ( 2003 ). Poverty, well‐being, and gender: What counts, who's heard?   Philosophy and Public Affairs 31(3): 280–316. 10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00280.x

O'Loughlin, Marjorie . ( 2006 ). Embodiment and education: Exploring creatural existence. Dordrecht: Springer.

Rich, Adrienne . ( 1976 ). Of woman born. New York: W. W. Norton.

Rhoads, Robert A. , and Shannon M. Calderone . ( 2007 ). Reconstituting the democratic subject: Sexuality, schooling, and citizenship.   Educational Theory 57(1): 105–21. 10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00247.x

Rosemont, Henry Jr. ( 1997 ). Classical Confucian and contemporary feminist perspectives on the self: Some parallels and their implications. In Culture and self: Philosophical and religious perspectives East and West , ed. Douglas Allen (pp. 63–82). Boulder: Westview Press.

Ruddick, Sara . ( 1989 ). Maternal thinking: Toward a politics of peace . Boston: Beacon Press.

Sander‐Staudt, Maureen . ( 2006 ). The unhappy marriage of care ethics and virtue ethics.   Hypatia 21(4): 21–39.

Sidorkin, Alexander M. ( 2002 ). Learning relations . New York: Peter Lang.

Slote, Michael . ( 1992 ). From morality to virtue . New York: Oxford University Press.

—— ( 1998 ). Caring in the balance. In Norms and values , ed. Joram G. Haber and Mark S. Halfon (pp. 27–36). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

—— ( 2000 ). Caring versus the philosophers. In Philosophy of education 1999 , ed. Randall Curren (pp. 25–35). Urbana‐Champaign: University of Illinois.

Star, Daniel . ( 2002 ). Do Confucians really care? A defense of the distinctiveness of care.   Hypatia 17(1): 77–106.

Stengel, Barbara S. , and Alan R. Tom . ( 2006 ). Moral matters: Five ways to develop the moral life of schools . New York: Teachers College Press.

Stone, Lynda . ( 1994 ). The education feminist reader . New York: Routledge.

Thayer‐Bacon, Barbara . ( 2000 ). Transforming critical thinking . New York: Teachers College Press.

Tronto, Joan . ( 1993 ). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care . New York: Routledge.

Tuana, Nancy , and Rosemarie Tong (Eds.). ( 1995 ). Feminism and philosophy . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Waerness, Kari . ( 1984 ). The rationality of caring.   Economic and Industrial Democracy 5(2): 185–212. 10.1177/0143831X8452003

Waithe, Mary Ellen . (Ed.). ( 1987 –95). A history of women philosophers , 4 vols. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Walker, Emilie V. Siddle . ( 1996 ). Interpersonal caring in the “good” segregated schooling of African‐American children. In Caring in an unjust world , ed. Deborah Eaker‐Rich and Jane A. Van Galen (pp. 129–46). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Walker, Margaret Urban . ( 2005 ). Diotima's ghost: The uncertain place of feminst philosophy in professional philosophy.   Hypatia 20(3): 153–64.

Ward, Geoffrey C. , and Ken Burns . ( 1999 ). Not for ourselves alone: The story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony . New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Watson, Jean . ( 1979 ). Nursing: The philosophy and science of caring . Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated University Press.

Watson, Marilyn . ( 2003 ). Learning to trust. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.

Weil, Simone. ( 1977 ). Simone Weil Reader , ed. George A. Panichas . Mt. Kisco, NY: Moyer Bell Limited.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Feminist theory and the study of gender and education

• Published: December 1987
• Volume 33 , pages 419–435, ( 1987 )

Cite this article

• Sandra Acker  

4555 Accesses

47 Citations

Explore all metrics

This paper considers the three main Western feminist theoretical frameworks — liberal, socialist and radical — and their educational applications. Examples of studies using each approach are discussed. Liberal feminists writing about education use concepts of equal opportunities, socialization, sex roles and discrimination. Their strategies involve altering socialization practices, changing attitudes and making use of relevant legislation. Critics of the liberal school point to conceptual limitations and the liberal reluctance to confront power and patriarchy. Socialist feminists analyze the role of the school in the perpetuation of gender divisions under capitalism. Major concepts are socio-cultural reproduction and to a lesser extent acceptance of and resistance to gender-based patterns of behaviour. So far socialist-feminist educational writing is mainly theoretical rather than practical and has therefore been criticized for its over-determinism and insufficient empiric foundation. Radical feminists in education have concentrated mainly on the male monopolization of knowledge and culture and on sexual politics in schools. Strategies involve putting women's and girls' concerns first, through separate-sex groups when necessary. Critics argue that radical feminism tends towards biological reductionism, description rather than explanation and also contains methodological weaknesses. Mutual criticism of perspectives seems less destructive in educational writing than in some other categories of feminist scholarship. All the theoretical frameworks are subject to the same pressures including the oppressive power of structures, the resilience of individuals, and the tension between universality (how women are the same) and diversity (how women differ on attributes like class and race).

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Artikel werden die hauptsächlich im Westen vertretenen feministischen Ansätze und deren Anwendungen im Erziehungssystem untersucht, d.h. der liberale, der sozialistische und der radikale Feminismus. Beispiele aus Studien, die jeweils einem dieser Ansätze folgen, werden angeführt. In liberalfeministischen Schriften zur Erziehung werden Konzepte wie Chancengleichheit, Sozialisation, Geschlechterrollen und Diskriminierung erörtert. Deren Strategien besagen, daß Sozialisationspraktiken zu ändern, Haltungen abzuwandeln und diesbezügliche Gesetze anzuwenden sind. Kritik an der liberalen Schule macht aufmerksam auf die begrifflichen Einengungen und auf den Widerwillen, Macht und Patriarchat zu konfrontieren. Sozialistische Feministinnen untersuchen die Rolle der Schule beim Reproduzieren geschlechtsspezifischer Aufteilungen im Kapitalismus. Kernbegriffe sind sozio-kulturelles Reproduzieren und in geringerem Maße Anpassung und Widerstand im Hinblick auf geschlechtsspezifische Verhaltensformen. Sozialistisch-feministisch begründete pädagogische Schriften blieben bis jetzt eher theoretisch als praktisch orientiert und deswegen werden sie wegen ihrer Überdetermination und ihrer unzureichenden empirischen Basis kritisiert. Radikale Feministinnen haben sich hauptsächlich auf das Männermonopol von Wissen und Kultur sowie sexualpolitische Einstellungen im Schulalltag konzentriert. Ihre Strategien zielen darauf ab, die Bedürfnisse der Mädchen und Frauen an erster Stelle zu sehen, und wenn nötig, dies durch Trennung der Geschlechter in Gruppen zu erreichen. Kritiker behaupten, daß der radikale Feminismus zu biologischem Reduktionismus sowie zur Beschreibung eher als Erklärung neigt und methodologische Schwächen aufweist. Wechselseitige Kritik an den Perspektiven scheint in den erziehungswissenschaftlichen Schriften weniger destruktiv als in einigen anderen kategorien der feministischen Forschung zu sein. Sämtlichen theoretischen Ansätzen sind Zwänge einschließlich der oppressiven Gewalt der Strukturen, der Widerstandskraft einzelner sowie der Spannung zwischen Universalität (inwieweit sich Frauen gleichen) und der Unterschiedlichkeit (inwieweit sich Frauen durch Merkmale wie Klasse und Rasse unterscheiden) gemeinsam.

Cet article examine les trois grandes théories féministes occidentales — le féminisme libéral, socialiste et radical — et leurs applications éducatives. On analyse quelques études se basant sur chacune de ces approches. Les textes des féministes libérales portant sur l'éducation emploient les concepts d'égalité des chances, de socialisation, de rôle et de discrimination des sexes. Leurs stratégies englobent une modification des pratiques de socialisation, un changement d'attitudes et l'usage d'une législation. Les critiques de ce courant libéral mettent en évidence les restrictions conceptuelles et les hésitations à affronter le pouvoir et le patriarchat. Les féministes socialistes analysent le rôle de l'école dans la reproduction de la distinction des sexes dans le système capitaliste. Les concepts majeurs concernent la reproduction socio-culturelle et, à un degré moindre, les codes et la résistance des sexes. Les textes des féministes socialistes relatifs à l'éducation restent encore de nos jours plutôt théoriques que pratiques. Ils ont été critiqués pour leur surdéterminisme et leur manque de connaissances fondamentales en matière de recherche pédagogique. Les féministes radicales se sont principalement concentrées, dans le domaine de l'éducation, sur la monopolisation par l'homme du savoir et de la culture, sur la politique sexuelle de la vie de tous les jours dans les écoles. Leurs stratégies consistent tout d'abord à faire valoir les intérêts des femmes et des filles grâce à l'établissement de groupes séparés de garçons et de filles s'il le faut. Selon les critiques, le féminisme radical tend vers un réductionisme biologique, une description plutôt qu'une explication et une faiblesse méthodologique. La critique mutuelle entre ces différentes perspectives semble moins destructive dans les textes relatifs à l'éducation que dans d'autres catégories de sciences féministes. Toutes ces théories partagent certains dilemmes, incluant l'accent relatif qui doit être placé sur le pouvoir oppressif des structures et la souplesse des individus, et sur la tension entre l'universalité (ce en quoi les femmes sont les mêmes) et la diversité (ce qui fait qu'elles diffèrent selon des caractéristiques telles leur classe sociale et leur race).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Gender Inequality and Education: Changing Local/Global Relations in a ‘Post-Colonial’ World and the Implications for Feminist Research

Reflections on the Emergence, History and Contemporary Trends in Nordic Research on Gender and Education

Expanding the Field of Comparative and International Education: The Inclusion of Gender

Acker, S. ‘No-Woman's-Land: British Sociology of Education 1960–1979’. Sociological Review . 29 (1981), No. 1, pp. 77–104.

Google Scholar  

Acker, S. ‘Women in Higher Education: What is the Problem?’ In Acker, S. and Warren Piper, D. (eds.) Is Higher Education Fair to Women? Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education and Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1984, pp. 25–48.

Acker, S., Megarry, J., Hoyle, E. and Nisbet, S. (eds.) World Yearbook of Education 1984: Women and Education . London: Kogan Page, 1984.

Amos, V. and Parmar, P. ‘Resistances and Responses: The Experiences of Black Girls in Britain’. In McRobbie, A. and McCabe, T. (eds.) Feminism for Girls . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981, pp. 129–143.

Amos, V. and Parmar, P. ‘Challenging Imperical Feminism’. Feminist Review . 17 (1984), pp. 3–19.

Anon. ‘Miss Is a Lesbian: The Experience of a White Lesbian Teacher in a Boys' School’. Teaching London Kids . 23 (1986), pp. 2–4.

Arnot, M. ‘Culture and Political Economy: Dual Perspectives in the Sociology of Women's Education’. Educational Analysis . 3 (1981), No. 1, pp. 97–116.

Arnot, M. ‘Male Hegemony, Social Class and Women's Education’. Journal of Education . 164 (1982), No. 1, pp. 64–89.

Arnot, M. and Weiner, G. Gender and Education Study Guide . Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1987.

Barrett, M. Women's Oppression Today: Problems in Marxist Feminist Analysis . London: Verso, 1980.

Brah, A. and Deem, R. ‘Towards Anti-Sexist and Anti-Racist Schooling’. Critical Social Policy . 6 (1986), No. 1, pp. 66–79.

Brah, A. and Minhas, R. ‘Structural Racism or Cultural Difference: Schooling for Asian Girls’. In Weiner, G. (ed.) Just a Bunch of Girls . Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1985, pp. 14–25.

Bryan, B., Dadzie, S., and Scafe, S. The Heart of the Race: Black Women's Lives in Britain . London: Virago, 1985.

Bunch, C. and Pollack, S. (eds.) Learning Our Way . Trumansburg, NY: The Crossing Press, 1983.

Byrne, E. Women and Education . London: Tavistock, 1978.

Carby, H. ‘White Women Listen! Black Feminism and the Boundaries of Sisterhood’. In Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. (ed.) The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 70's Britain . London: Hutchinson, 1980, pp. 212–235.

Connell, R.W. ‘Theorizing Gender’. Sociology . 19 (1985), No. 2, pp. 250–272.

Connell, R.W., Ashenden, D.J., Kessler, S. and Dowsett, G.W. Making the Difference: Schools, Families and Social Division . Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1982.

Cott, N. ‘Feminist Theory and Feminist Movements: The Past Before Us’. In Mitchell, J. and Oakley, A. (eds.) What Is Feminism? Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986, pp. 49–62.

Culley, L. and Demaine, J. ‘Social Theory, Social Relations and Education.’ In Walker, S. and Barton, L. (eds.) Gender, Class and Education . Lewes: Falmer, 1983.

David, M.E. ‘Women, Family and Education’. In Acker, S. et al. (eds.) World Year-book of Education 1984: Women in Education . London: Kegan Page, pp. 191–201.

Delmar, R. ‘What Is Feminism?’ In Mitchell, J. and Oakley, A. (eds.) What Is Feminism? Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986, pp. 8–33.

DuBois, E.C., Kelly, G.P., Kennedy, E.L., Korsmeyer, C.W. and Robinson, L.S. Feminist Scholarship: Kindling in the Groves of Academe . Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985.

Eisenstein, H. Contemporary Feminist Thought . London: Unwin, 1984.

Fuller, M. ‘Qualified Criticism, Critical Qualifications’. In Barton, L. and Walker, S. (eds.) Race, Class and Education . London: Croom Helm, 1983, pp. 166–190.

Gaskell, J. ‘Conceptions of Skill and the Work of Women: Some Historical and Political Issues’. In Hamilton, R. and Barrett, M. (eds.) The Politics of Diversity . London: Verso, 1986, pp. 361–380.

Gearhart, S.M. ‘If the Mortarboard Fits ... Radical Feminism in Academia’. In Buch, C. and Pollack, S. (eds.) Learning Our Way . Trumansburg, NY: The Crossing Press, 1983, pp. 2–18.

Griffin, C. Typical Girls? London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985.

Hargreaves, A. ‘Resistance and Relative Autonomy Theories: Problems of Distortion and Incoherence in Recent Marxist Analyses of Education’. British Journal of Sociology of Education . 3 (1982), No. 2, pp. 107–126.

Jayawardena, K. Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World . London: Zed Books, 1986.

Jeffcoate, R. ‘Ideologies and Multicultural Education’. In Craft, M. (ed.) Education and Cultural Pluralism . Lewes: Falmer, 1984, pp. 161–187.

Jones, C. ‘Sexual Tyranny: Male Violence in a Mixed Secondary School’. In Weiner, G. (ed.) Just a Bunch of Girls . Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1985, pp. 26–39.

MacDonald, M. ‘Socio-Cultural Reproduction and Women's Education’. In Deem, R. (ed.) Schooling for Women's Work . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980, pp. 13–25.

MacKinnon, C. ‘Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State: An Agenda for Theory’. Signs. 3 (1982), pp. 515–544.

Mahony, P. Schools for the Boys? Co-Education Reassessed . London: Hutchinson, 1985.

Middleton, S. ‘The Sociology of Women's Education as a Field of Academic Study’. Discourse . 5 (1985), No. 1, pp. 42–62.

Mitchell, J. and Oakley, A. (eds.) What Is Feminism? Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

Murphy, L. and Livingstone, J. ‘Racism and the Limits of Radical Feminism’. Race and Class . 26 (1985), No. 4, pp. 61–70.

O'Brien, M. ‘Feminism and Education: A Critical Review Essay’. Resources for Feminist Research . 12 (1983), No. 3, pp. 3–16.

Rendel, M. ‘How Many Women Academics 1912–1976?’ In Deem, R. (ed.) Schooling for Women's Work . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980, pp. 142–161.

Rendel, M. ‘Women Academics in the Seventies’. In Acker, S. and Warren Piper, D. (eds.) Is Higher Education Fair to Women? Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education, and Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1984, pp. 163–179.

Russell, S. ‘The Hidden Curriculum of School: Reproducing Gender and Class Hierarchies’. In Hamilton, R. and Barrett, M. (eds.) The Politics of Diversity . London: Verso, 1986, pp. 343–360.

Segal, L. Is the Future Female? London: Virago, 1987.

Spender, D. Man Made Language . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980.

Spender, D. (ed.) Men's Studies Modified: The Impact of Feminism on the Academic Disciplines . Oxford: Pergamon, 1981.

Spender, D. Invisible Women: The Schooling Scandal . London: Writers and Readers, 1982.

Spender, D. and Sarah, E. (eds.) Learning to Lose: Sexism and Education . London: The Women's Press, 1980.

Stanley, L. and Wise, S. Breaking Out: Feminist Consciousness and Feminist Research . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983.

Suleiman, L. and Suleiman, S. ‘“Mixed Blood — That Explains a Lot of Things” — An Education in Racism and Sexism’. In Weiner, G. (ed.) Just a Bunch of Girls . Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1985, pp. 77–88.

Thompson, J. Learning Liberation: Women's Response to Men's Education . London: Croom Helm, 1983.

Weiner, G. ‘Feminist Education and Equal Opportunities: Unity or Discord?’ British Journal of Sociology of Education . 7 (1986), No. 3, pp. 265–274.

Weiner, G. (ed.) Just a Bunch of Girls . Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1985.

Whyte, J. Girls Into Science and Technology: The Story of a Project . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986.

Whyte, J., Deem, R., Kant, L. and Cruickshank, M. (eds.) Girl Friendly Schooling . London: Methuen, 1985.

Yates, L. ‘Theorising Inequality Today’. British Journal of Sociology of Education . 7 (1986), No. 2, pp. 119–134.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Acker, S. Feminist theory and the study of gender and education. Int Rev Educ 33 , 419–435 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00615157

Download citation

Issue Date : December 1987

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00615157

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Feminist Theory
• Feminist Scholarship
• Radical Feminist
• Educational Application
• Relevant Legislation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research