Their narrow framing of policy action reinforces masculine bias in traditional security studies by marginalizing deeper epistemological questions

(J. Ann, Feminist Security Studies: Celebrating an Emerging Field Politics & Gender 7(4))

Finally, a word about the problems and possibilities of dialogue with the security studies mainstream. Because security studies is a particularly masculinized field in which there are very few women, this is a particularly challenging issue. The publication of a special issue of the journal Security Studies in 2009, edited by Sjoberg, was a milestone event in this regard. Feminists are investigating very different issues, many of which would not be considered security issues by the mainstream, many of whom are readers of this journal. I do think, however, that there is some opening in this respect. Issues such as trafficking and violence against women in war are now more prominent on the agendas of national governments and international organizations and, consequently, are coming to the attention of mainstream scholars. Answering the kinds of questions about insecurity asked by much of the research I have described, however, involves much deeper epistemological study than adding issues to the research agenda of security studies. Expecting feminists to present their ideas about gender identities and the implications of the deeply masculinized structures that pervade security thinking and policy in ways that are intelligible to social scientists is deeply problematic. Security studies scholars must recognize that there are many valuable and legitimate ways of conducting “scientific” research outside of positivist social sciences practices. This is evident in the stimulating and important work that feminists who work in the field of security studies are doing. It is evident also in the rich and innovative work of authors in this volume, whose research is broadening and deepening our understanding of the multiple insecurities faced by people around the world. (580)

Feminist method expands available epistemological tools- incorporates perspectives that are traditionally excluded to the expense of practical policy making

Tickner, PhD Brandeis, 2005

(J. Ann, What is your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions International Studies Quarterly Vol 49 No 1 March)

In this article, I have offered some reasons why most IR feminists have chosen to conduct their research outside positivist social scientific frameworks. I have suggested that many of the questions they have posed are not yet answerable within such frameworks. While there is no such thing as a feminist method, there are distinct feminist perspectives on methodology that have emerged out of a deep skepticism about traditional knowledge, knowledge that is based largely on certain privileged men's lives and men's experiences. The two case studies that I discussed illustrate the parallels between IR feminists' methodological sensitivities and these methodological perspectives from other disciplines. These IR feminists are asking questions about the linkages between the everyday lived experiences of women and the constitution and exercise of political and economic power at the state and global level. Specifically, they seek to understand how gender and other hierarchies of power affect those at the margins of the system. Their findings reveal states constituted in gendered ways whose security-seeking practices frequently render the lives of their most powerless citizens more insecure. Such redefinitions of security challenge us to think about tensions between state and human security. IR feminists are asking questions that have rarely or never been asked before in IR; moreover, as I have demonstrated, they are questions that probably could not be asked within the epistemological boundaries of positivist social scientific approaches to the discipline. Feminists share with other social constructivists an interest in constitutive questions; however, they are unique in asking questions about socially constructed gender hierarchies and the implications of these gender hierarchies for the behavior of states and the functioning of the global economy. Feminist answers to these questions demonstrate how gender is a pervasive feature of international life and international politics, the implications of which go well beyond its effects on women. For these reasons, and others that I have discussed, in the foreseeable future at least, IR feminists are likely to favor hermeneutic and interpretive methodologies that expose and help explain these structural relationships. They are also likely to prefer methods that allow subjects to document their own experiences in their own terms. Frequently, these are experiences about which there are little available data since they have either been ignored or categorized in ways that deny their subjects their own identities. As more relevant data become available, it is likely that many feminists will use them to enrich their textured accounts of the lives of those who have not been previously considered as subjects of knowledge. Constructing knowledge from the standpoint of the outsider provides us not only with a wider perspective but also with a unique perspective on knowledge about insiders. Since it offers us a more complex picture of reality, practical knowledge, or knowledge from below, has the potential to extend the boundaries and even transform the discipline in ways that are beneficial for everyone. (18-19)