Printer Friendly

Break-Throughs, Break-Ins and Break-Ups: The Impact of Gender Studies Across the Disciplines. (Introduction).

The articles in this special issue of RFR/DRF recognize the tension between the positive, productive side of erecting borders around feminist scholarship through the development of women's studies and gender studies programs and the goal of integrating feminist scholarship within mainstream curriculum. They also hold out hope that feminist scholarship can move out of a marginal position and resist the containment implied by the separation of disciplines.

Given the extensive attention already devoted to the topic of gender and the academic disciplines, one might ask "why more?" Taking stock of the impact of women's studies/gender studies/feminism on the academic disciplines is one means of writing a history (biography might be a more appropriate term) of feminist contributions to scholarship. Given the ever-changing mappings of disciplinary boundaries, those occupying the borderlands might find such a running account useful in planning future strategy. In addition, reflexive scholarship requires such a "turning-back," and a critical revaluation of directions and goals. Analyses have become more and more complex as feminist scholars have recognized that getting women into the disciplines is not sufficient; to effect change in the traditional disciplines requires additional forces which are contextual.

In September 1996 a group of scholars gathered at the University of Calgary for a conference entitled, "Break-Throughs, Break-Ins and Break-Ups: The Impact of Gender Studies Across the Disciplines." The wide range of disciplines represented (Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, Philosophy, English, Women's Studies, Medicine, Engineering, Commerce, Art, Law, Criminology and others), along with the diversity of generations (including an emeritus professor, senior scholars holding administrative appointments, untenured professors and graduate students) meant that the conference drew on vastly different experiences within institutions and disciplines. For if it is true that gender has worked its way into the methodologies of a spectrum of disciplines across the university, it is also true that the disciplinary response to gender has been uneven and varied. Even within the Faculties around which contemporary universities structure themselves, significant differences exist: in medicine, for instance, family therapi sts challenged themselves to think through the implications of gender some two decades before their colleagues in other specialties reflected on the previously unquestioned assumption that the male body could be the norm for treatment protocols and medications; in the humanities, scholars in English and modem languages drew on European and Anglo-American theorizing to explore the construction of traditional canons and to retrieve marginalized women's writings, while other humanities disciplines, such as classics, took up issues of gender much more cautiously. The late 1990s seemed a propitious moment to revisit and re-examine the impact of gender studies across the disciplines. In alluding to 'break-throughs, break-ins and break-ups,' the title of the conference signalled both the innovations and the instabilities that scholarship on gender foregrounds within academic communities.

Interest in gender and the academic disciplines has been sustained since Dale Spender's (1981) collection Men's Studies Modified: The Impact of Feminism on the Academic Disciplines appeared two decades ago. With essays covering the broad spectrum of the academy, including humanities (e.g., philosophy), social sciences (e.g., sociology), science (e.g., biology), law, education and medicine, Spender described the purpose of her book in this way:

Although there are numerous bases for the division between those who have power and those who do not, the focus of this book is the division based on gender. Most of the knowledge produced in our society has been produced by men; they have usually generated the explanations and the schemata and have then checked with each other and vouched for the accuracy and adequacy of their view of the world. They have created men's studies (the academic curriculum), for, by not acknowledging that they are presenting only the explanations of men, they have "passed off" this knowledge as human knowledge. Women have been excluded as the producers of knowledge and as the subjects of knowledge, for men have made their own knowledge and their own sex, representative of humanity...In this volume we have documented the extent to which we have begun to alter the power configurations in the construction of knowledge and in society. That there is today a conceptualisation of traditional knowledge as men's studies, and that such men 's studies are being modified, suggests that the first decade of the modem women's movement has been productive. (pp. 1, 8)

Thus, only a little more than a decade into the second wave of the women's movement, feminist scholars were already highlighting the connections between gender and knowledge and documenting the changes in knowledge production associated with feminism.

About a decade later, and in response to Allan Bloom's (1987) attack on feminist scholarship in Closing of the American Mind, another edited collection appeared. The essays included in Foundations for a Feminist Restructuring of the Academic Disciplines (Paludi & Steuernagel, 1990) were written for persons who were unfamiliar with feminist scholarship. The editors argued that the institutionalization of women's studies, while promoting feminist scholarship on the one hand, had unfortunately led to the containment of feminist scholarship within the boundaries of women's studies. Consequently, those scholars who worked within traditional disciplinary boundaries were unaware of the scholarship produced within women's studies, and thus, this volume aimed to contribute to curriculum transformation through the integration of feminist scholarship everywhere in the academy. An example where a substantive amount of "mainstreaming" had already occurred was history, where it had already become routine to include women' s history in courses and textbooks (Clements, 1990). The changes promoted by feminist thought were compatible with the changes associated with the "new" social history, suggesting that the intellectual environment of a discipline may facilitate or impede the changes advocated by feminist scholars. Economics provides an example of the latter. Here, a slower pace has been noted -- including women requires different assumptions and value judgements associated with the tools of economic analysis and the interpretation of results (Burnell, 1990). Marilyn Waring's study of national and international accounting systems, originally published in 1988 and republished as a second edition in 1999, makes a similar argument and documents that little has changed in recent times. Crossing disciplinary boundaries to achieve fill integration may be more difficult when radical changes to the epistemological underpinnings of a discipline are required.

Disciplinary boundaries and borders continue to be a major theme in a more recent edited collection entitled Knowing Feminisms: On Academic Borders, Territories and Tribes (Stanley, 1997). Drawing on Gloria Anzaldua's notion of "borderlands," Liz Stanley stresses the importance of the space in between the borders where knowledge claims and approaches to developing knowledge, as well as identities, are contested. Absent is any mention of integration or mainstreaming. Indeed, Stanley refers to herself and other feminist scholars as "within the academy but not entirely of it" (p. 17). Such an analysis focusses on the power relations associated with knowledge production and draws our attention to the function of knowledge, i.e., that the producers of knowledge generally benefit from that knowledge and thus there is much at stake when either the knowledge itself or the means by which it is produced are criticized (again Marilyn Waring's biting critique of economics offers a particular case study). Some feminist scholars, such as Jill Morawski, have held up liminality -- that place of "betwixt and between" -- as offering radical possibilities:

If feminist psychology is a liminal science and if its marginality is conjectured as betwixt and between -- as occupying a space/time of potential transformation--then the typical conversations about impasse, conflicting models, and contestation are at least partially in error. To occupy a liminal social zone is not necessarily to be stuck in or stuck by something, but rather to be not so encumbered or detained. Likewise, the paradoxes of that position need not be read as debilitating contradictions. Most importantly, liminality -- as a suspended moment of transition when the ordinary and mundane are viewed in their strangeness and otherness -- is not inextricably fated to one's reinstitution or reaffirmation of the ordinary social world; rather, the liminal...condition holds the potential to subvert, transmute, or transform. (Morawski, 1994, pp. 55-56)

In other words, the double consciousness made possible through liminality enables the feminist scholar to "see" from the perspective of a member of the academy and as a woman. Of course, nothing remains still or inflexible; the borders sometimes shift and "woman" is not a single, fixed category. Nevertheless, all who occupy the borderlands enjoy the advantage of being outside the boundaries and experience the disadvantage of being drawn in multiple directions. Out of the conflict and contradictions, however, come new possibilities.

Frequent analysis of the contributions of feminist scholarship to the academic disciplines facilitates the process of understanding the historical and social conditions that enable change. Londa Schiebinger (1999) makes this point forcefully in her exploration of how feminism has changed science. She advocates gender analysis as one strategy for attempting "to turn critical understanding of women's historical relationship to science into productive cultural change" (p. 182). Such an analysis "should act as does any other experimental control to provide critical rigor; to ignore it is to ignore a possible source of error in past and also future science" (p. 186). The "tools" of gender analysis include analyzing research priorities and determining who benefits from the research outcomes, analyzing how institutional arrangements contribute to the knowledge produced within those institutions, and reconsidering what constitutes science. Schiebinger concludes:

Change will have to happen simultaneously in many areas, including conceptions of knowledge and research priorities, domestic relations, attitudes in preschools and schools, structures at universities, practices in classrooms, the relationship between home life and the professions, and the relationship between our culture and others. (p. 195)

Gender analysis then is one way of contributing to this complex process of change.

It is in this spirit that we hosted the conference. Our aim was two-fold -- to document changes in the academy and to promote discussion of potentialities for future change. Jo-Ann Wallace's article in this issue investigates the break-throughs that attention to research in neuropsychiatry might offer feminist theorizing about the body and subjectivity in the humanities. This is the sort of "break-in" that occurs when the knowledges of a particular discipline are confronted with different lines of questioning and investigation from another discipline. Her argument incorporates both the writings of Judith Butler, particularly her 1993 publication, Bodies That Matter, a book which has been extremely influential within the humanities, and Peter Kramer's book, Listening to Prozac, a bestseller which has remained largely undiscussed in humanities academic circles, to open up an innovative way of thinking about the body and its construction within social spaces. Butler's influential and ideologically prestigious wo rk theorizes a body that is, in Wallace's description, "fluid, malleable, responsive to and disciplined by the social and regulatory practices it inhabits." Such a formulation, one that underpins and makes possible performative transformations in gender, has surprising affinities with Kramer's examination of the implications arising from the abilities of psychotropic medications -- Prozac and others -- to alter neurochemicals and facilitate the construction of a new body/subjectivity. Wallace argues that feminist scholars in the humanities and social sciences ought to attend to research in the neurological sciences. Also drawing on Elizabeth A. Wilson's pathbreaking 1998 book, Neural Biologies: Feminism and the Microstructure of Cognition, she suggests that an openness to neurophysiology offers the potential "to enrich and even embolden feminist analysis and politics." Rather than simply rejecting biological data in the name of a conventionalized anti-essentialism, a position which has unfortunately character ized all too many discussions in the humanities and social sciences, Wallace urges feminist scholars to consider a conception of the body where, as she puts it, "biological matter, experience, and social/cultural forces, habits, or conventions move in a complex and mutually informing exchange."

R.W. Connell's contribution to this issue offers another possible strategy. Focussing on the definition of gender and masculinity(ies) and the variety of masculinity politics, he argues that an understanding of this diversity can be useful to feminists who aim to change the academy. Alliances can be formed where there are common interests, and common interests arise in the context of particular versions of masculinity. This analysis adds a layer of complexity not present in earlier work such as Spender's where men and men's studies are treated as monolithic. What is surely critical in forming alliances is a common endorsement of feminism as a guiding framework. Men who reject feminist thinking, on the other hand, become one of the sources of resistance that feminist scholars face as they negotiate from within the borderlands. Such rejection is not unchangeable, however, opening the possibility for productive collaboration. What remains under-theorized is how particular versions of feminist thought fit with particular versions of masculinity.

Yet another strategy in opposing received knowledge is recognizing the situated nature of all knowledge. In an article entitled "On Our Own Terms: Self-Defined Standpoints and Curriculum Transformation," Patricia Hill Collins has argued for knowledges situated in specific standpoints that, she suggests, can provide a powerful tool in challenging dominant entrenched systems of knowledge. Drawing on Michel Foucault's concept of subjugated knowledges, Collins develops a three-dimensional approach to alternative knowledges. In her words, it is important for scholars to be attentive to "the self-defined yet subjugated knowledge of subordinated groups such as women of color, racial/ethnic groups, gays and lesbians, and the poor". She goes on to argue that "the distinctive ideas and worldview of these groups" have the potential to contest and reconstruct "the concepts, paradigms, and epistemologies of knowledge representing elite group interests" (Collins, p. 371). Crucial to the project of enabling and constructing subjugated knowledges are dialogues among those from differently situated groups; as she puts it, "when self-defined, subjugated standpoints encounter each other, the resulting dialogues foster the types of coalitions among subordinated groups that move us all toward reconstructed knowledge" (p. 377). Similarly, awareness of gender across disciplines has unquestionably opened up a wide range of inquiries into what has traditionally been accepted as knowledge and the exclusionary assumptions that all so often accompany these constructions. Feminist scholars in history, modern languages, anthropology, sociology and other disciplines have in their research recognized and recovered texts of women's subjugated knowledges (journals, oral traditions, diaries, letters and so on).

Perhaps no contribution to this issue foregrounds feminist breakthroughs in the conceptualization of knowledge quite so much as that of Landon Mackenzie. As a visual artist, Mackenzie challenges viewers to think through the colours and textures of paint and canvas. In an essay accompanying a 1997 exhibition of her paintings, Jack Laing describes the complex interactions of human subjectivity and inhabited space that Mackenzie's art explores: her project, he suggests, is "an investigation which has taken her across many terrains -- geography, history, knowledge, painting -- to give voice to the hidden stories that are buried in the wake of dominant narratives and 'official' histories" (Laing, p. 18). And yet, Mackenzie is not only concerned with making visible what has been obscured and unrecognized, but also in exploring the processes through which erasure takes place. Laing describes a paradox at the centre of her artistic practice: "[I]n an effort to shed light on these silent stories, her paintings actually conceal more than they reveal" (p. 18). Heavy layering of paint, partially unintelligible writing, gaps in figuration, spaces of startlingly impenetrable blackness -- all of these techniques work to challenge the viewer, to frustrate any transparent interpretation of the paintings.

These qualities are nowhere so apparent as in the Saskatchewan Paintings. As a province, Saskatchewan is a particularly apt subject for Mackenzie: its boundaries are not marked by nature (rivers or mountains), but simply by human imposition, by the grid of latitude and longitude; it is the province of vast open spaces, low horizons and huge skies, deceptively empty; its rectangular shape even resembles a canvas. Still more important is the fact that Mackenzie has no special personal connections to Saskatchewan; it is a place she visits, sitting in small town coffee shops to write, or gazing down at old documents in the provincial archives. "Gabriel's Crossing to Humbolt" (1995) confronts the viewer with an expansive canvas, more than seven feet high and ten feet long. Working with canvases this size is undoubtedly reminiscent of the vast spaces of Saskatchewan, but it is also Mackenzie's claim to situate herself within the generally masculine tradition of large oil paintings. Outlines of a rigid grid cover th e painting's surface, foregrounded as intensely bright yellow squares near the centre, faintly visible in some places, painted over into obscurity in others. A column of neat handwriting extends through the centre of the picture plane; the words, however, are difficult to read, layered over each other, so that only fragments are legible: "It seems a chance meeting.. ." or "beyond real space." In looking at the painting, therefore, the viewer is challenged just as much to reflect on what is not decipherable, on what is not there. As Mackenzie puts it, "The words hidden over. Secrets kept forever in a casing of water and polymer. Retrievable only perhaps by archival X-Ray" (Mackenzie, p. 8).

The paradox of a "present absence" is especially striking in two black clover or quatrefoil shapes that seem to open up on each side of the grid lines. The disappearance of the painting's colour and pattemings into such intense blackness figures all that vanishes into landscape, into history, into memory. The title of the painting, "Gabriel's Crossing to Humbolt," refers to the ferry which Gabriel Dumont operated; that is, it suggests the daily work and routines of his life that have subsequently been displaced by his association with Louis Riel and the Metis Rebellion, which now positions him in the official knowledges of Canadian history. Similar questions and issues are raised in the fictional territories of Mackenzie's 1996 acrylic on linen painting, "Interior Lowlands (Still the Restless Whispers Never Leave Me)." Here, netlike lines create a less obvious but no less insistent grid, whose straight lines and angles contrast with the meandering lines of what appears to be the mapping of a river. Unlike the clarity and directional orientation of a map, however, "Interior Lowlands" offers some points of reference -- "Saskatoon," "Battle Plain" -- only to dissolve into the obscurity of layered and shadowed, ultimately indecipherable, script. Alongside writing and discourse are traces of the human body: the round womb-like dark shape, the bright red paint which resembles nothing quite so much as dripping blood. The thick, layered palimpsest of the painting's surface suggests the complexities and difficulties in interpreting the past and retrieving history, in understanding landscape and the markings of space on human bodies, in apprehending and recognizing a self or selves.

Difficulties in recognition and the necessity to retrieve erased histories, both personal and collective, has been a recurring theme in literature and personal narratives by writers of colour. Sneja Gunew's article in this issue of RFR/DRF explores two Asia-Pacific diasporic narratives of third or fourth generation children of immigrants: Shirley Geok-lin Lim's Among the White Moon Faces: An Asian-American Memoir of Homeland and Garrett Hongo's Volcano: A Memoir of Hawai'i. The memoir itself is a genre that has existed in the borderlands of the literary tradition; indeed, contemporary critical interest in memoirs has been largely inspired by feminist scholars' investigations. Gunew explores how these two very different writers understand and constitute belonging, and how they negotiate the tensions between the projects of their individual lives and the complex communities of diaspora. Of crucial importance to both Lim and Hongo are the languages through which knowledge takes shape. And, while the status of th e language of the colonizer -- English -- is a pressing issue, Lim and Hongo struggle with the pull of other languages: for Lim, the Hokkien Chinese dialect of her father and the Malay of her mother; for Hongo, the pidgin dialects of Hawai'i. For neither is the recovery of the past direct or transparent; like the multi-layered paint in Landon Mackenzie's art, the past remains obscured and opaque, but nonetheless available to interpretation.

Sue Campbell's article is also concerned with mapping out that which has all too often been excluded from knowledge: everyday experience and its interpretation through philosophy. How do we conceptualize and understand feelings, emotions, memories, expectations? To what kinds of knowledges do everyday experiences give us access? In her words, "how do we understand and acknowledge in our theories what is of significance to others from their own point of view in their lives?" Pointing out that even sympathetic feminist scholars often subordinate experience and value it only in relation to the potential collective actions it might inspire, Campbell argues that attention to experience is particularly necessary for "disciplines that depend on and teach abstraction in the service of knowledge." While abstraction may be necessary to develop broad theorizations and to condense a range of diverse data, the categorizations on which abstraction depends cannot conceptualize or attend to the local, the nuanced or the as yet unnamed. These disciplines, Campbell suggests, have much to gain from adopting a vigilant critical practice that is alert to "the complexities of expression" and flexible enough to allow such complexities to question abstractions.

Marie-Andree Bertrand and Olivette Genest discuss the possibilities of research that positions itself beyond the borders of the disciplinary divisions of the contemporary university. Genest addresses the particular instance of a seminar in Montreal on "Le feminisme au carrefour des disciplines," which gathered together feminist scholars from different disciplines and institutions. While the experience of discussions across disciplines inevitably brought moments of false starts, confusions and misunderstandings, the borderlands of interdisciplinarity also provided new insights and connections which would have been unlikely within the boundaries of a single discipline. In Genest's evaluation, interdisciplinary research is based less in a methodology than in a disposition of mind ("une attitude d'esprit"), a willingness to open up one's ideas and ways of thinking to the challenges and possible critiques from another disciplinary perspective. Taking a broader historical perspective, Bertrand begins reminding her readers that, although "departmentalization" may appear to be a "natural" organization of knowledges, it is in fact a very recent twentieth-century strategy for organizing a university. Specialization might be necessary for the advancement of knowledge in some of the pure and applied sciences (for example, the subdivision of chemistry which established the discipline of biochemistry), but the social sciences and human sciences need not follow the same divisions. She points out that women especially ought to interrogate the organization of the contemporary university: Like other non-dominant groups, women did not participate in the development of disciplinary divisions in the contemporary university, and their needs, insights and concepts are not part of that construction.

One of the most potent slogans of 1970s feminism was "the personal is political." The affective intensity of this deceptively simple statement derived perhaps from the fact that it legitimated a political analysis of women's own experiences. The final section examines several responses to the recently published book, York Stories: Women in Higher Education, in which women scholars and teachers recount their experiences at York University (see also the Book Review section in this issue for a review of the collection). Founded during the expansion of the Ontario university system in the 1960s, York University seemed to embody the promise of changes: as a young institution, its smaller size and more intimate college system was a welcome alternative to the impersonally large University of Toronto; many of its faculty members were politically progressive; courses were offered in cutting-edge interdisciplinary studies. Given this context, it is especially sobering to listen to the stories of how women negotiated, and continue to negotiate, systemic problems and impasses within the institution of the University. Constance Backhouse, a professor of law, and a feminist scholar who was a co-author of the powerful "chilly climate" report at the University of Western Ontario, reflects on the concrete strategies women have found useful in the past and makes cogent suggestions for the future. Arun Mukherjee, one of the editors of York Stories, explores further her own experiences as a woman of colour in the academy. Her title, "In But Not at Home: Women of Colour in the Academy" suggests the conflicted positioning of a woman of colour in an institutional workplace marked through and through by systemic racism. Taking up similar issues, Meera Sethi, also a member of the The York Stories Collective responsible for editing the collection, comments on the York Stories project from the perspective of a woman of colour in graduate school and from the position of a generation of students who have experienced the university in a perio d of massive government underfunding, escalating tuition fees, and high student debt. Their experiences recorded in York Stories, Sethi notes, "fell at some point in their education, along a continuum of disillusionment and disappointment," and further that, "the potential for graduate studies to be an exciting, creative and truly nourishing experience is not being fully realized."

That this is not a local issue is evident in the recent publication of philosopher Jane Roland Martin's (2000) Coming of Age in Academe. Here, Martin recounts "three expeditions across the academy's terrain," focussing specifically on feminist scholars" (p. xxiii). She argues that women have paid a price for their "acceptance" into the academy, which includes estrangement from one another, from the lived experiences of women outside the academy, and from "women's" occupations. Inextricably tied to these costs are limitations on the pursuit of feminist scholarship, including the research questions we ask, the methodologies we adopt, and the criteria by which such scholarship is evaluated. She points out that because virtually every aspect of higher education is gendered, transforming the academy is necessarily an exceedingly complex business. Nevertheless, she stresses patience and draws comfort from an analogy to the women's suffrage movement:

I do not know what the precise shape of a global campaign for a woman-friendly academy will be. No one can determine this in advance. What I do know is that the mass movement for suffrage included women who joined one march or attended a single meeting and women who devoted their careers and gave their lives for the cause. It was conducted by both women and men working both outside the formal political system and within. It consisted of acts both great and small, strategic and utterly outrageous. The cause of women in higher education -- all women, of every race and group -- demands no less, not one whit less. (p. 182)

Taken together, the papers we have collected for this issue of RFR/DRF represent examples of contemporary feminist scholarship that illustrate how gender matters to the activity of producing knowledges. They create both continuities and disjunctures with earlier, similar collections and represent an ongoing strategy of keeping the issues alive and on the table in an effort to contribute to change in the academy. The links among gender, power, and knowledge production that Dale Spender highlighted in 1981 remain significant touchstones for current feminist work. While recognizing the importance of the historical and contemporary interventions of women's studies within the academy, discussions no longer focus on "men's studies" and "men's studies modified" (i.e., women's studies), but instead conceptualize a multiplicity of standpoints producing situated knowledges that serve particular interests. Moreover, the positioning of feminist scholarship outside the mainstream, identified as problematic by Paludi and Steuernagel (1990), is no longer simply a limitation, but also offers new possibilities through its positioning in the borderlands between disciplines. Indeed, interdisciplinarity itself is taken by some to offer radical possibilities at least for humanities and social science projects. The sorts of multiplicities outlined here produce new research questions and new sites of research inquiry. They turn our attention to the politics of the research activity itself and to the question of why certain knowledges are subjugated and others championed. Writing about feminist psychology, Jill Morawski points to the open-ended nature of the research process and the continuing struggles and conflict that all feminist scholars face:

Even in the best of times, feminist inquiry has entailed a double labor consisting, first, of making a place for research to be done, and second, accomplishing the investigative work that is normally thought of as the doing of science. As a relatively stable space for working is established, we can concentrate more on investigating and making knowledge claims, although we are hardly exonerated from confronting possible rebounds and backlashes in the future. Yet even as we stand ready for difficulties, a new world is already in the making, a world where we have earnestly participated in (among other changes) the transformation of gender, knowledge, and knowledge makers. (p. 245)

Women in increasing numbers have been taking a place in the academy throughout the past century, and feminist scholarship continues, with varying degrees of success, to challenge more traditional disciplinary commitments. Recognizing the fluidity and tentativeness of knowledge claims and of the changes brought about through feminist thought as well as the resistance of the academy to the substantive changes called for by feminist thought we anticipate the need to regularly review the impact of gender on the academic disciplines.

References

Burnell, Barbara S. "Images of Women: An Economic Perspective." In M. Paludi and G. A. Steuernagel, eds., Foundations for a Feminist Restructuring of the Academic Disciplines. New York: Harrington Park Press, 1990, pp. 127-166.

The Chilly Climate Collective, ed. Breaking Anonymity: The Chilly Climate for Women Faculty. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1995.

Clements, Barbara E. " Images of Women: Views from the Discipline of History." In M. Paludi and G. A. Steuernagel, eds., Foundations for a Feminist Restructuring of the Academic Disciplines. New York: Harrington Park Press, 1990, pp. 99-126.

Collins, Patricia Hill "On Our Own Terms: Self-Defined Standpoints and Curriculum Transformation." NWSA Journal vol. 3, no. 3 (1991), pp. 367-381.

Laing, Jack. This Place and Some Other: The Solitary Journey of Landon Mackenzie. Toronto: Art Gallery of York University, 1997.

Mackenzie, Landon. Accounting for an Imaginary Prairie Life. Performance script, 1997.

Martin, Jane Roland Coming of Age in Academe: Rekindling Women's Hopes and Reforming the Academy. New York: Routledge, 2000.

Morawski, Jill G. Practicing Feminism, Reconstructing Psychology: Notes on a Liminal Science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.

Paludi, Michele and Gertrude A. Steuernagel, eds. Foundations for a Feminist Restructuring of the Academic Disciplines. New York: Harrington Park Press, 1990.

Schiebinger, Londa. Has Feminism Changed Science? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

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

Stanley, Liz, ed. Knowing Feminisms: On Academic Borders, Territories and Tribes. London: Sage, 1997.

Townsend-Gault, Charlotte. "Landon Claims and the Saskatchewan of the Mind," in Landon Mackenzie, Saskatchewan Paintings. Vancouver: Contemporary Art Gallery, 1996.

Waring, Marilyn. Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What Women are Worth (2nd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999.

York Stories Collective, eds. York Stories: Women in Higher Education. Toronto: TSAR, 2000.

Pamela McCallum is Professor of English at the University of Calgary and a Life Fellow of Glare Hall, Cambridge University. She was active in establishing the Institute for Gender Research at the University of Calgary and served as Director (1999-2000).

Lorraine Radtke is Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary. She was actively involved in the establishment of the Institute for Gender Research at the University of Calgary and is currently a member of the Governing Circle and the Advisory Circle for the Institute.
COPYRIGHT 2001 O.I.S.E.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2001 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:McCallum, Pamela; Radtke, Lorraine
Publication:Resources for Feminist Research
Date:Sep 22, 2001
Words:5242
Previous Article:Temporary Work: The Gendered Rise of a Precarious Employment Relationship. (Book Reviews / Comptes Rendus).
Next Article:Where the Body is a Battleground: materializing gender in the humanities (1). (Articles).
Topics:


Related Articles
Burglary halved as police crack down; POLICE CLAIM 'WE'RE WINNING THE WAR ON CRIME IN WARWICKSHIRE'.
Cracking result!
Schools targeted for whiteboards; WORLD CUP 2006 CRIME: Thieves snatch hi-tech equipment to watch football matches.
Appendix A: sample workshop programme.
Unleash the power of wonder women; Nearly 60 per cent of all new university graduates and about 80 per cent of students in business administration...
Police appeal after thefts.
Police step up patrols to stop car crime.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters