Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros15-1VariaWhat Is a Feminist Approach to Re...

Varia

What Is a Feminist Approach to Research in the History of Economic Thought? Methods in the Field

Quelle approche féministe de la recherche en histoire de la pensée économique ? Méthodes dans le champ
Sarah F. Small et Laura Beltran-Figueroa
p. 5-29

Résumés

Malgré une littérature croissante sur les femmes dans l’histoire de la pensée économique et sur la méthodologie économique féministe, peu de travaux ont été réalisés pour définir une approche féministe de la recherche en histoire de la pensée économique. En s’appuyant sur les méthodes de l’histoire féministe et de l’économie féministe, nous décrivons deux approches distinctes : (1) l’histoire de la pensée économique féministe, qui examine la trajectoire de la pensée économique sur le patriarcat, l’intersectionnalité et le « social provisioning », et (2) l’histoire féministe de la pensée économique. Dans ce domaine, nous proposons des perspectives féministes sur plusieurs approches de la recherche en histoire de la pensée économique, incluant : (a) l’effet Matilda ; (b) le développement de corpus ; (c) les études d’archives ; (d) le rôle de la biographie ; et (e) les études orales, linguistiques et de réseau. En dernière instance, cet article propose un guide pour les économistes féministes intéressés par la poursuite de la recherche en histoire de la pensée économique et il remet en question une approche de la recherche dans le domaine qui se résumerait à une recette du type « ajouter le genre, puis mélanger ».

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1Feminist economics and history of economic thought share at least one common threat to mainstream economic thinking: an interrogation of power in economic thought and research. While mainstream economics often limits its analysis to quantifiable phenomena and assumes neutrality in economic processes, feminist economics and the history of economic thought go further by critically examining the social, cultural, and political structures that underpin economic systems and the history surrounding them (Strassmann, 1993; Nelson, 1995). Feminist economics, in particular, challenges economists to consider the masculine biases, and therefore, the patriarchal power, present in the research questions asked and methods used. By questioning the power struggles in the epistemology and sociology of economic thought, feminist economists disrupt mainstream assertions that economic theories are infallible or that economics can be studied with the same objectivity and detachment as physics (McCloskey, 1983; Allisson and Mueller, 2018). Whereas the epistemology of economic thought often assumes objectivity and universality in its principles (Fernández Pinto, 2016), feminist epistemological economics critiques these assumptions, emphasizing how knowledge is influenced by social and cultural contexts. Similarly, while analyses of the sociology of economic thought have traditionally focused on broader institutional and structural constraints; feminist scholarship within this field expands the scope by examining the intersection of gender, power, and economic systems (Nee, 2005).

2In recent years, a substantial body of work intersecting feminist economics and history of economic thought has developed. Canonical economic texts in the history of economic thought have traditionally focused on the work of European and American men, often overlooking the contributions of women. However, recent scholarship has begun to address this gap by examining the role of women in the history of economic thought (Chassonnery-Zaïgouche et al., 2022; Cohen, 2022; Small, 2023). Some has been on the Matilda effect (Rossiter, 1993; Burns, 2022), recovering women collaborators on works previously attributed to men. Others have examined how classical economic thinkers have ignored women and been antifeminist in their writing (Pujol, 1992; Folbre, 2009; Marçal, 2016). And others have focused on the history feminist economics and feminist economists in particular (Orozco Espinel and Gomez Betancourt, 2022; Small, 2022; Becchio, 2024). However, while there has been some work on approaches to history of economic thought research broadly (Biddle, 2003), as well as work on feminist economic research methods (Kim, 1997; Sigle-Rushton, 2014; Small, 2024), there has been very little work which asks what a distinctly feminist approach to research in history of economic thought looks like. In this article, our goal is to offer practical guidelines for scholars interested in pursuing research in the history of economic thought using distinctly feminist methodological approaches.

3As a starting point, Nelson (1995) proposed an outline for feminist economists, emphasizing the importance of methodological plurality. She argued for the use of mixed and qualitative methods alongside quantitative techniques to address androcentric biases and to better capture components of power, patriarchy, and social provisioning that are often excluded from quantitative data. Kim (1997) further highlighted the importance of feminist researchers explicitly positioning themselves within their work and embracing conscious subjectivity rather than perpetuating a façade of value-free objectivity. Power (2003) contributed to this discourse by defining key tenets of feminist economic research: investigations of power, patriarchy, social provisioning, and intersectionality.

4As questions of gender and feminism become more apparent in history of economic thought, we are forced to ask, what is a feminist approach to research in the field? As gender mainstreaming becomes more popular across the economics discipline (Small and Braunstein, 2024), distinctly feminist researchers may find themselves looking for answers to this question. In this article, we present both a critical review of the existing literature and a manifesto advocating for methodological awareness in the history of economic thought. Specifically, we outline two distinct approaches: the history of feminist economic thought and the feminist history of economic thought. The history of feminist economic thought is concerned with the development of feminist economics, examining the trajectory of economic thinking on patriarchy, intersectionality, and social provisioning. In contrast, the feminist history of economic thought adopts a broader approach that applies feminist perspectives to the history of economic thought itself. As Backhouse (2001) notes, the writing of history is inherently shaped by the present and requires awareness of how epistemological assumptions and institutional practices influence historical narratives​. For instance, they bring into question the rigidity of historiographical frameworks and the ways in which such frameworks can obscure alternative perspectives or marginalized voices. In this sense, the feminist history of economic thought interrogates questions of patriarchal power within epistemology and the sociology of economics, challenging androcentric research methods and assumptions embedded in traditional historiography. For instance, it may question how the social and political environment of an era influenced the development of economic theories, shaped the inclusion or exclusion of certain voices, and reinforced power dynamics within the discipline. Building on this foundation, we explore feminist perspectives on several methodological approaches to research in the history of economic thought: (a) the Matilda effect; (b) corpus development; (c) archival studies; (d) the role of biography; and (e) oral history, linguistic, and network studies.

1. Literature and Contribution

5While feminist ideologies on the production and dispersion of knowledge have been around for a long time, feminist epistemology and philosophy of science studies fully took grounding in the late 20th century following the second-wave feminist movement (Grant, 2015). During this period, individuals from different fields championed the idea that knowledge does not exist within a vacuum nor is universalist but rather is situated within individual experiences. In her now seminal work, Harding (1986) coined the term “strong objectivity” to refer to a scientific inquiry approach which acknowledges the influence of social values and power relations on knowledge production. In her view, knowledge will become more objective and relevant only when its production begins to inquire into the lived experiences of women and others who have historically been outsiders to the institutions where knowledge has been created. In this vein, Haraway (1998) highlighted the dichotomy many feminist scholars were dealing with at the time: on one end the traditional, disembodied scientific objectivity emphasized in academia and on the other, the more situated, embodied knowledge that acknowledges the social construction of all knowledge claims.

6One cannot approach feminist epistemology and philosophy of science studies without addressing the role history of science played in shaping our understanding of these disciplines. Broadly defined, this field aims to critically examine the development and contextualization of scientific knowledge over time. Historians of science aim to “understand the science of the past in its own terms, reconstructing the reasonableness if not timeless rationality of the argument on all sides.” (Daston, 2009, 802) Originally focused on the hard sciences, the field has since expanded to include other disciplines and the knowledge produced outside academic institutions, setting the stage for feminist methodologies to emerge, challenging gender biases entrenched in the production and diffusion of knowledge across various fields. As Renn (2015, 39) eloquently articulated, “The history of science can only be understood against the background of a global, long-term history of knowledge, including local knowledge that constitutes the substratum and the matrix of all other forms of knowledge.”

7Feminist historians, following the foundational work in feminist epistemology and history of science, have sought to reshape historical analysis by incorporating gender as a critical lens. As Matthews states,

Feminist history is that which seeks to change the very nature of traditional history by incorporating gender into all historical analysis and understanding. And the purpose of that change is political: to challenge the practices of the historical discipline that have belittled and oppressed women, and to create practices that allow women and autonomy and space for self-definition. (Matthews, 1986, 148)

8In a similar vein, Lake (1986) begs historians to analyze the imbedded biases present in their own writings, an oversight which has perpetuated a skewed understanding of history that overlooks the influences of masculinity on historical events and societal structures.

9Much like feminist historians, feminist economic historians have sought to challenge the androcentric biases embedded in traditional economic narratives. Although the development of this field within economics has faced significant resistance (Pearse and Keane, 2023), notable contributions have emerged, focusing on recovering overlooked perspectives and reevaluating foundational assumptions in economic thought. Similarly, to Harding (1986; 1995a), Strassman (1994) recognized the pitfalls of what constitutes a theory according to economic standards, and called for a rectification of these narrow definitions to include alternative theories of what constitutes knowledge beyond those solely rooted in mathematical and quantitative methods. Seiz also identified profound gaps in contemporary literature on feminist economic thought, writing:

How much recognition of the variety and value of women’s economic activity has been present in economists’ descriptions of economic life? How often have economists discussed the problems facing women, the extent to which women’s interests conflicted with those of men, and the role of economic and political institutions in promoting or reducing women’s welfare? What have economists said about women’s restricted educational and employment opportunities and low wages, the plight of women in poverty, and the exclusion of women from positions of political, economic, and intellectual authority? What positions did economists take, in public or in private, on debates about women’s suffrage, limitations on women’s right to own property, protective labor legislation, and divorce laws? (Seiz, 1993, 188)

10Seiz’s (1993) critique appears in a small symposium on the history of feminist economic thought in History of Political Economy, with contributions from Folbre (1993), Strassmann (1993), and Nelson (1993), who were all very active in the early stages of the International Association for Feminist Economics, also founded in the early 1990s (Orozco Espinel and Gomez Betancourt, 2022). Since the early 1990s and since Seiz’s (1993) critique, there has been a recent resurgence in feminist engagement with history of economic thought, with many feminist economic historians of thought have risen to the challenge over the past three decades through both applied and theoretical work (Small and Braunstein, 2024). However, feminist scholarship in the history of economic thought remains fragmented and lacks a cohesive framework. While some studies have addressed feminist questions within the field, few have explicitly defined a feminist history of economic thought or articulated distinct feminist methodologies for the discipline. Notable exceptions include the works of Hewitson (2010), Rostek (2021), and Guizzo (2024).

11Hewitson (2010) has laid wonderful groundwork, indicating that feminist economists have concentrated on three basic strands of history of economic thought: (1) contribution history, which looks for “lost gems” (as Rostek, 2021 describes it) of economic writing by women previously excluded from the canon; (2) examining early economic writing by men with a view to constructions of gender (much like Pujol, 1992 and Folbre, 2009); and (3) questioning the validity of the history of economics ‘canon’ and its androcentric bias. Guizzo (2024) similarly explains how the production of knowledge in economics has been built under exclusionary practices along axes of epistemology, ideology, and evaluation. She then offers opportunities to reshape economics in more inclusive ways through work in “herstories” of economic thought. Namely, she suggests that such works can (1) center engaged pluralism in economic thinking that women economists often offer throughout history, (2) rethink the dichotomy and relationship between experts and civil society in economics, and (3) embrace diversity not just along dimensions of social identity, but also in epistemic orientations. In our view, Guizzo (2024) and Hewitson (2010) offer core guiding principles for doing feminist work in history of economic thought. We aim to build off their work by also taking a more detailed look at specific methods used in history of economic research and how we might reconsider and reimagine them to be more in line with the feminist principles outlined.

12We begin by first outlining what we mean by the history of feminist economic thought and then offer specific opportunities for feminist methods and approaches in the history of economic thought. In this way, we build off Guizzo’s (2024) and Hewitson’s (2010) core tenets to provide both practical guidance for feminist historians of economic thought and raise methodological questions for the discipline to consider.

2. History of Feminist Economic Thought

13Perhaps coinciding with the rise of feminist and gender economics broadly, we have observed an abundance of new work in the history of feminist economic thought. History of feminist economic thought examines the development of feminist economics: this means scholars examine the trajectory of economic thinking on patriarchy, intersectionality, and social provisioning (Power, 2003).

14Some examples of history of feminist economic thought include work which considers the development of feminist economics and its corresponding academic institution. For instance, Becchio (2019) provides a history of the development of gender and feminist economic thinking, while Orozco Espinel and Gomez Betancourt (2022) use oral histories to outline the development of the International Association of Feminist Economics. Conrad (2019) similarly examines the evolution of feminist economics thought and its relationship to second-wave feminism movement.

15Other recent histories of feminist economic thought include histories on feminist economists and their work. For example, Small (2022) traces feminist economist Barbara Bergmann’s development of her occupational crowding hypothesis. Banks (2005; 2008; 2021; 2022) has written a great deal on Sadie Alexanders’ research on Black women and economic equality. Both authors write about a woman economist, but this is not what makes their work histories of feminist economic thought. What makes these works histories of feminist economic thought is their centering Bergmann and Alexanders’ contributions to feminist political economy. Indeed, many historians of economic thought have written about the history of feminist ideas with a focus on male economists: Chassonnery-Zaïgouche and Cot (2021) discuss Edgeworth’s thinking on women’s wages and Sigot and Beaurain (2009) examine Mill’s writing on the employment of married women. Many broader works have considered some of the classical economists work in feminist thought. Pujol (1992)’s groundbreaking work documents thinking on feminism and antifeminism in early economic thought, similar to that of Bodkin (1999). Madden (1972) also provides a broad history of economic thinking on gender equality, ranging from Marx to Robinson, to Mill and Wollstonecraft.

  • 1 One exception is Banks’ work, which focuses on Sadie Alexander. Yet this is still focused on a thin (...)

16Despite these exciting histories on feminist economic thinking, we have a handful of concerns on their methods from a feminist perspective. First, some of these histories are written by ‘insiders’ to the feminist economics community while others might consider themselves ‘outsiders.’ Feminist researchers have long advocated for reflexivity in the research process, which may require historians of feminist economic thought to consider their own relationship with the discipline and how their position and research may be shaped by power structures within and outside of the community (Collins, 1986; Harrison, 2008; Jabiri, 2024). A distinctly feminist approach to histories of feminist economics research would need to engage in this type of reflexivity. Second and relatedly, despite feminists’ focus on intersectionality, very little of the current literature in history of feminist economic has been written on feminist thought applying to women outside the White, Global North feminist paradigm.1 Third, the prevailing focus on women’s equality in work has touched on women’s unpaid care work and housework but has been limited in histories of feminist thinking on social provisioning. A focus on histories of feminist thinking on social provisioning in particular may require researchers to veer into a different corpus of literature, including that of home economics, which we will address in questions of corpus development in the subsequent sections.

17Finally, we do not consider work that is simply historicizing women’s economic thought a history of feminist economic thought. Many indeed focuses on women in economics, but not feminist economic ideas. Still, we discuss the importance of some of these such works in the subsequent section.

3. Feminist History of Economic Thought: Approaches and Methods

18Distinct from history of feminist economic thought, which is relatively straightforward and somewhat well established, feminist history of economic thought is a broader approach to history of economic thought research. It examines questions of patriarchal power in epistemology and in the sociology of economics and uses these questions to inform historical research methods. In other words, as Guizzo (2024) and Emami and Olson (2002) have nicely put it, feminist historians of economic thought seek to examine the social construction of knowledge within economics and consider the ways in which women’s contributions have been ignored, misrepresented, or marginalized.

19In this section, we consider distinctly feminist research methods in the history of economic thought. These include discussions on: (a) the Matilda effect; (b) corpus development; (c) feminist approaches to archival studies; (d) taking standpoint seriously; and (e) feminist approaches to oral history, linguistic, and network studies. We build not only on literature in the history of economic thought but pull from an interdisciplinary array of literature in feminist studies and gender history.

3.1 ‘Uncovering’ Women: The Matilda Effect

20Many recent works have not necessarily documented the history of feminist thinking in economics but have unearthed women’s contributions to economic thinking more broadly. For example, Jennifer Burns (2022) uses archival sources to reconstruct an alternate history of Friedman’s A Theory of the Consumption Function which spotlights the con­tributions of Margaret Reid, Dorothy Brady, and Rose Friedman to the theory. Others have similarly used text analysis to investigate Harriet Taylor Mill potential co-authorship alongside John Stuart Mill (Neocleous et al., 2022; Schmidt-Petri et al., 2022).

21Burns writes:

Restoring this history underscores the centrality of women’s con­tributions to economics, a recovery project still necessary decades after the dawn of women’s history. Scholars have documented the Matilda effect—the systemic discounting of women’s intellectual contributions—in the natural and social sciences, including economics. (Burns, 2022, 44)

22We assert that documenting the Matilda effect is indeed a feminist approach to the history of economic thought: especially if it directly it engages with the patriarchal power structures at play within the discipline of economics throughout its history. However, in a discipline that has historically been dominated by men, what makes reconstructive history distinct from just writing about women in economics? Certainly, unearthing women who have not been credited for economic thinking throughout history is valuable on its own, but it is especially feminist, we argue, if it engages with patriarchal power structures which obscured her and her thoughts from due credit in economic discourse. For instance, while documenting the contributions of prominent women scholars, such as Joan Robinson’s groundbreaking work in economic theory or Edith Abbott’s foundational research on labor economics, is critical, what truly makes it a feminist approach to the history of economic thought is the exploration of why their insights were dismissed or undervalued at the time. It requires examining how such treatment reflects broader patriarchal dynamics within the discipline. Moving beyond merely identifying who contributed, a feminist approach investigates why their work was excluded and questions the systems, institutions, and biases that perpetuated this marginalization.

23However, there are some limitations of the Matilda effect which mean it cannot be the sole feminist approach in history of economic thought research. For example, a great deal of the literature on the Matilda effect has focused on White women in the Global North, who were close to those in power: namely, upper-class White men who had the recognition and opportunity to publish more conventionally academic manuscripts in economics. Indeed, a great deal of research in this realm continues to center on men. As Rostek (2021, 2) writes, it is difficult in such literature for women to not “end up as satellites revolving around and responding to the standard set by male economists.” To move beyond such foci, further work in feminist histories of thought should also consider unearthing the economic thinking of women of lower classes, women of color, and women in the Global South, to do this, one may also have to reconsider how one defines an economic text.

3.2 Developing a Corpus

24A feminist history of economic thought can also disrupt androcentric approaches in corpus development. Namely, not all sources of economic thinking need come from journal articles, books, or grand treatises. Nor do these publications need to be authored by economists for there to be insightful economic knowledge. Surely, if these are the sole area from which we draw knowledge on economic thinking, then we miss a great deal. Forget (2020, 3) has articulated this point nicely, writing: “Specifically, we need to make room in our histories for knowledge brokers of all kinds, because otherwise our histories leave out too many of the people who helped to create and transform economic knowledge.”

25Genres of writing need to be diverse to be inclusive: not all academic treatises (of which only upper-class men have historically been able to publish). We need to include novels, songs, letters, pamphlets, and other more easily accessed content in what we consider economic literature. These are powerful avenues through which women, colonized, and working-class people could express their economic thinking. Forget has done a great deal of this type of work: for example, she has drawn on brief ‘translations’ of economic textbooks and pamphlets written by women like Jane Marcet, Émilie du Châtelet, Sophie de Grouchy, and Clémence de Royer, among many others in her work (Forget, 2001a; 2001b; 2010; 2016). In her 2020 piece, Forget (2020) also draws out economic insights from folk charms and poetry to illustrate opportunities to draw from a wider array of materials in corpus development. Rostek (2021) also challenges what the notion of what counts as ‘economic thought’ and ‘economic writing’ in her book Women’s Economic Thought in the Romantic Age. She draws from novels, pamphlets, and memoirs when uncovering a selection of European women’s economic thought around 1800. Similarly, Seiz (2019) examines how women disseminate economics knowledge as storytellers.

26In addition to considering a broader corpus of literature from which to draw, feminist historians of economic thought must also consider works that are not solo or co-authored in the conventional sense. Indeed, moments where women were historically able to publish work in a more conventional manner were often done so in group settings. For example, as outlined by Mercer (2009), the pamphlets and subsequent branch shops established by the Women’s Social and Political Union as part of the 20th-century suffrage movement created new spaces and dynamics that enabled women’s groups to strengthen their voices in ways that individuals alone often could not. Similarly, work by Tyler (2016) on the history of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union highlights how their union magazine, Justice, served as a vital platform for discussing economic thinking on labor rights, working conditions, and economic justice.

27Ultimately, research in the history of economic thought which challenges the androcentric bias in what types of texts are considered ‘economic’ texts are very much in line with the feminist economic goal of upending androcentric bias in the economics discipline overall. To reclaim the aforenoted types of works as valid and valued types of knowledge production moves the central narrative of history of economic thought closer to a feminist history of economic thought.

3.3 Feminist Archival Approaches

  • 2 The practice of explicitly situating oneself in the research and offering reflexivity common in man (...)

28Feminist historians of economic thought have developed unique ways of engaging with archives to advance their research. Scholars working with feminist archival methods emphasize centering not only their subjects but also themselves within the research process. This approach recognizes that archives are not neutral repositories of knowledge, but spaces imbued with power dynamics, subjectivities, and societal biases.2

29For example, Reger (2020) explored the life and works of Maxine Feldman by reflecting on her own emotional responses while reviewing archival materials. They argued that understanding Feldman’s contributions required acknowledging how their personal reactions illuminated the broader impact of Feldman’s work, which often eludes mainstream interpretations. Similarly, Sutherland (2017) introduced the concept of “archival amnesty” to describe the systematic exclusion of traumatic events in Black American history, such as lynching, from American archives. This selective preservation perpetuates historical silences and underscores the role of power in shaping archival records. Barrett (2022) highlighted how systemic biases in archival practices have obscured the contributions of women in science, while Snapp-Cook (2010) documented the erasure of LGBTIQ individuals, whose archival presence only began to gain traction after pivotal moments like the Stonewall riots.

30Given these systemic exclusions, feminist scholars actively challenge and dismantle power structures inherent in archival practices. Dever (2017, 2) aptly summarized this work, stating: “Feminist work increasingly understands archives themselves as ‘figured’ [Stoler, 2009], that is, enmeshed in histories, politics, and power structures that must be accounted for before any investigation of individual collections can proceed.” This critical approach not only seeks to uncover hidden narratives but also redefines archives as spaces for activism and social justice. Cifor and Wood (2017) have argued that linking archival research with feminist and social justice movements transforms archives from mere sites of historical recovery into platforms for contemporary activism.

31While in practice attempting to reconstruct history through an inclusive and feminist perspective is by no means an easy task, several scholars have begun to explore alternative methodologies and frameworks that not only question but actively resist traditional historical narratives. For instance, Finden (2023) employs counter-mapping as a feminist and decolonial method to critically engage with colonial archives and interrogate the enduring legacies of colonial power structures in postcolonial settings, particularly in Egypt. Their approach lies in using historical maps, lived experiences, and participant narratives to uncover and challenge the points of resistance between colonial narratives and the lived realities of marginalized communities. By reinterpreting archival materials, Finden highlights the divergence in narratives between the colonial framing of specific spaces as “centers of disturbance” and the lived experiences of these areas as vibrant, community-centered, and historically significant. In similar efforts, Frank (2019) reflects on an encounter between the Dutch collective Sister Outsider and Audre Lorde through a research methodology rooted in the practices of orientation, listening, and intervention. By acknowledging the racialized, gendered, and sexualized nature of archives and engaging deeply with archival materials—especially those with emotional and historical resonance, such as photographs, correspondence, and other ephemera—Frank effectively uncovers hidden layers of meaning. This thorough and reflective approach not only emphasizes the complex dynamics within archival spaces but also leverages the fragmented nature of archives as a productive space for reimagining and reconstructing feminist histories.

  • 3 While this approach may be less conventional in economics, it seems scholars agree that one must wr (...)

32Whereas most scholars may shy away from unconventional and subjective research methods, Pester (2017)’s practice-based research methodology based on archive fanfiction embraces these approaches as transformative tools. By expanding feminist critiques of universalizing narratives and challenging archival orthodoxies, Pester employs “fabulations”, or fictional accounts that interweave creative imagination with critical insight, to reconstruct and reinterpret archival data. This methodology disrupts hierarchical structures of knowledge production, positioning archives as dynamic, interactive spaces where fragmented materials are reanimated through speculative and situated narratives.3 Lastly, Okune’s (2020) approach to feminist archival research deploys open-source software for collaborative ethnography, enabling individuals to actively participate in creating and interpreting their own historical narratives. By emphasizing transparency and co-creation, Okune disrupts traditional hierarchies of knowledge production, reframing archives as participatory spaces where diverse voices and lived experiences inform and reshape research outputs.

33As exemplified above, approaching archival research from a feminist perspective means making intentional and critical decisions on how to handle silences, who contributes to the narratives, whose voices are prioritized, and how power dynamics within the archival process are addressed. Thus, while archives themselves—with their inherent biases and structural limitations—might not directly be a neutral repository of truth, the conscientious and deliberate use of them can serve as a powerful tool for scholars interested in the feminist history of economic thought to uncover marginalized perspectives, challenge dominant narratives, and critically examine the intersections of gender, power, and economic ideologies.

3.4 Taking Standpoints Seriously

  • 4 Some have pointed to standpoint theories and issues of gender representation to understand how and (...)

34One area in which feminist methods and history of economic thought have very nicely overlapped is in their emphasis on standpoints. Namely, understanding an economic thinkers’ background and overlapping social locations is important from the perspective of both feminist standpoint theory (Harding, 2004) and scholars in the history of economic thought (Howson, 2013; Forget, 2002). Standpoint theory is often used by feminist researchers to understand how knowledge production is embedded in social and political contexts. In general, a standpoint epistemology asserts “that knowledge is constructed from specific positions and that what a knower can see is shaped by the location from which the knower’s inquiry begins” (Sprague, 2016, 47). More simply, “ideas cannot be divorced from the individuals who create and share them” (Collins, 2015, 252). In the realm of history of economic thought, Forget (2002) argues that scholars should take advantage of life writing to guide narratives on economic works and to enhance our understanding how economists’ lives inform their research. Howson (2013) specifically points archival methods and the importance of including personal content in one’s analysis. As feminists have long highlighted, this helps us understand that economic ideas are not developed in an objective vacuum but rather shaped by power and patriarchy in many instances (Nelson, 1995). Indeed, we propose that studies which use biography to help readers understand the role of patriarchy specifically are very much in line with a feminist approach to history of economic thought research. By framing the contributions of economic thinkers not just in terms of their theoretical outputs but also in the context of their lived experiences, we gain a fuller picture of how their identities and social conditions influenced their intellectual pursuits. Questioning how their race, class, and material reality influenced their perspectives and, in turn, their intellectual contributions, we can begin to uncover the often-overlooked dynamics of privilege and marginalization that inform the creation of knowledge.4

35Equally important, however, is the positionality of the researcher. Feminist scholars have long emphasized that the researcher’s own identity, social location, and experiences inevitably shape the production of knowledge. Commonly referred to as insider-outsider dynamics in qualitative research, this dual positionality can influence not only the research process but also the interpretation and presentation of findings.

36As Acker (2000) notes, while a researcher operating as an insider—possessing intimate knowledge, cultural competency, or shared experiences—may have an easier time building trust and fostering rapport with participants, their position can also introduce biases. Conversely, an outsider may bring a fresh perspective and critical distance to the research, but they might struggle with gaining access to the community, establishing trust, or fully understanding the nuanced cultural and social context of participants’ experiences.

37To illustrate these dynamics, Adjei and Nung Chan (2024) provide a compelling example through their ethnographic study of fishing communities on the southwestern coast of Ghana. Their work reveals how material and discursive forces, such as gender norms, tools like audio recorders, and spatial arrangements, co-create fluid positionalities for researchers during fieldwork. Similarly, in her exploration of Russian migrants’ homes in the UK, Pechurina (2014) demonstrates how a researcher’s dual role as both an insider and outsider evolves throughout the research process. Her work underscores the importance of reflexivity in navigating complex ethical dilemmas, such as balancing power dynamics between the researcher and participants and negotiating trust and access within the studied community.

38This interconnectedness of researcher and participant standpoints reaffirms the argument that knowledge production in economics and social sciences is inherently contextual, and thus must be recorded as such. Boveda and Annamma (2023) suggest moving beyond static positionality statements that merely list identities or assert authority through professional proximity to marginalized communities. Instead, they advocate for a dynamic approach to positionality, one that actively interrogates how the researcher’s evolving relationship with participants, context, and power structures shapes the research process and its outcomes. 

3.5 Integrating Feminist Perspectives into Oral Histories, Linguistic Analysis, and Network Studies

39There also exist opportunities to adapt commonly used research methods such as oral histories, linguistic methods, and network studies to reflect feminist and intersectional perspectives. Just as archival research can be reclaimed as part of feminist methodologies for the history of economic thought, so too can oral histories. Through their own experiences, Anderson et al. (2019) have argued that by attending to the moral language, meta-statements, and narrative logic of interviewees, researchers can gain insights into the often-subtle expressions of resistance or acceptance found within personal stories. Additionally, they alert the researcher about the importance of their own feelings and sensations while conducting the interview, as it is those feelings that can alert the interviewer about discrepancies on what is being said and what is being meant. When conducting research on the history of economic thought, capturing non-verbal language cues can thus provide researchers with guidance on where to probe further, refine their questions, or explore underlying dynamics that might otherwise remain hidden.

40On a related note, Sangster (1994) highlights the relevance gender may have to the oral history process and they point to three broader issues: (i) why and how women explain, rationalize, and make sense of their past, (ii) what are the ethical issues involved in interpreting other women’s lives through oral history, and (iii) what theoretical approaches are most effective in conceptualizing this methodology. In a feminist history of economic thought piece, not only should researchers be aware of how gender, power, and privilege shape the narratives being shared, but they must also consider their own positionality and the ways it influences the research process, as this awareness not only shapes the narrative being shared but also validates the complexity and authenticity of the knowledge being produced.

41Related to the first issue Sangster (1994) raises, feminist linguistic methods and networks studies emerge as two potential pathways to further expand the understanding of gendered experiences in economic history. Feminist linguists have long advocated that language is a particular vision of social reality molded by the prevailing power structures and cannot be treated as an objective device (Ehrlich and King, 1994). This issue is thus particularly important for feminist researchers interested in conducting history of economic thought research, as not only are they tasked with uncovering their own hidden biases in terms of language but also the connotations specific words and expressions were imbued with in the historical contexts they study. Some contemporary research has been dedicated to understanding the changes in meanings and implications of specific economic terminologies over time, highlighting how shifts in language reflect broader shifts in societal attitudes and power dynamics. For instance, Freedman (2013) has traced the evolution of what constitutes sexual violence through the years, emphasizing the shift from the voice of the accusers and assailants to the societal narrative around it. Similarly, Settles and Steinmetz (2013) have traced the evolution of what constitutes the family in an era where different family structures and the emergence of diverse family forms challenge traditional economic models. Thus, by analyzing the language used in historical economic texts and debates, researchers can reveal implicit biases, exclusions, and assumptions that have informed the development of economic thought. 

42Likewise, feminist network studies can further complement more mainstream history of economic thought methodologies. Although more prevalent in anthropology and other social sciences, network studies aim to analyze the interactions among individuals and groups by taking into account personal choice and possible manipulation of relations in the interest of self (Boissevain and Mitchell, 1973). Particularly, feminist network studies and social network analysis aspire to situate “rhetors within broader communities and social networks, thereby highlighting collective agency, circulation of discourse, and the importance of solidarity” (Fancher and Faris, 2022, 141). In history of economic thought, some scholars have attempted to reinterpret existing theories by applying a feminist lens to the relationships and contributions within economic networks, thus uncovering overlooked impacts of women and other marginalized groups. For example, using data on the publishing patterns among women in economics, Hengel and Phythian-Adams (2022) have contended that the strategic formation of women networks across the years has allowed for greater visibility and influence within the field. Understanding the proximity and connections between individuals, institutions, and intellectual movements using network analysis can provide insights into how economic ideas have been transmitted, challenged, and reshaped over time. Furthermore, network analysis can reveal how structural barriers, such as limited access to publishing platforms or professional networks, have impacted the visibility and recognition of certain groups within the history of economic thought.

4. Conclusion

43Ultimately, our goal with this piece is to offer suggestions on how we might move beyond an “add women and stir” approach to research in the history of economic thought (Harding, 1995b). Herein we have described several ways to reconsider research in feminist history of economic thought, especially through methods and approaches like the Matilda effect, broadening corpus development and definitions of economic literature, the role of biography and standpoint, and feminist approaches to archival, oral history, linguistic, and network studies. What we outline as approaches in feminist history of economic thought draws from methods employed in feminist studies, social history, and interdisciplinary research, to allow for a more complete understanding that moves beyond traditional (and often androcentric) approaches in history of economic thought.

44Still, the methods and approaches we describe herein are not intended to be an unchanging or complete list, but merely a starting point. Our hope with this work is that it will inspire many more specific and rigorous discussions of the ways history of economic thought can include feminist perspectives that go beyond a surface level inclusion of women. As work on the role of women in economic thought continues to come into the fore, we hope to see more critical and careful analysis of what it means to approach gender in the history of economic thought with a distinctly feminist lens.

The authors would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers as well as Edith Kuiper and other participants in the 2024 International Association for Feminist Economics annual conference for their comments on earlier versions of this work.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Acker, Sandra. 2000. In/Out/Side: Positioning the Researcher in Feminist Qualitative Research. Resources for Feminist Research28(1-2): 189-210.

Adjei, Moses and Annie Hau Nung Chan. 2024. Making a Difference with Matter in Researchers’ Positionality Dynamics in Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative Research25(3): 711-731.

Allisson, François and Thomas Mueller. 2018. From Walras’s Physics Envy To Winiarski’s “Mécanique Sociale”. History of Economic Ideas26(2): 103-123.

Alluqmani, Amnah and Lior Shamir. 2018. Writing Styles in Different Scientific Disciplines: A Data Science Approach. Scientometrics115(2): 1071-1085.

Anderson, Kathryn, Susan Armitage, Dana Jack, and Judith Wittner. 2019. Beginning Where We Are: Feminist Methodology in Oral History. In Joyce McCarl Nielsen (ed.), Feminist Research Methods. London: Routledge, 94-112.

Backhouse, Roger E. (2001). How and Why Should We Write the History of Twentieth-Century Economics? Journal of the History of economic Thought23(2): 243-251.

Banks, Nina. 2005. Black Women and Racial Advancement: The Economics of Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander. The Review of Black Political Economy, 33(1): 9-24.

Banks, Nina. 2008. The Black Worker, Economic Justice and the Speeches of Sadie TM Alexander. Review of Social Economy, 66(2): 139-161.

Banks, Nina. 2021. Democracy, Race, and Justice: The Speeches and Writings of Sadie TM Alexander. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Banks, Nina. 2022. Retrospectives: Sadie TM Alexander: Black Women and a “Taste of Freedom in the Economic World”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 36(4): 205-220.

Barrett, Anne. 2022. Where Are the Women? How Archives Can Reveal Hidden Women in Science. In Claire G. Jones, Alison E. Martin, and Alexis Wolf (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Women and Science since 1660. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 129-147.

Bayer, Amanda and Cecilia Elena Rouse. 2016. Diversity in the Economics Profession: A New Attack on An Old Problem. Journal of Economic Perspectives30(4): 221-242.

Becchio, Giandomenica. 2019. A History of Feminist and Gender Economics. London: Routledge.

Becchio, Giandomenica. 2024. Pioneering Feminist Economics: Barbara Bergmann’s Contributions to Gender Issues. Eastern Economic Journal, 50: 472-495.

Biddle, Jeff E. 2003. Research Styles in the History of Economic Thought. In Samuels, Warren G., Jeff E Biddle, and John B. Davis (eds), A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1-8.

Bodkin, Ronald G. 1999. Women’s Agency in Classical Economic Thought: Adam Smith, Harriet Taylor Mill, and JS Mill. Feminist Economics, 5(1): 45-60.

Boissevain, Jeremy and J. Clyde Mitchell (eds). 1973. Network Analysis: Studies in Human Interaction. The Hague: Mouton.

Boveda, Mildred and Subini Ancy Annamma. 2023. Beyond Making a Statement: An Intersectional Framing of the Power and Possibilities of Positioning. Educational Researcher52(5): 306-314.

Burns, Jennifer. 2022. Hidden Figures: A New History of the Permanent Income Hypothesis. History of Political Economy, 54(Suppl.): 43-68.

Chassonnery-Zaïgouche, Cléo, Evelyn L. Forget, and John D. Singleton. 2022. Women and Economics: New Historical Perspectives. History of Political Economy, 54(Suppl.): 1-15.

Chassonnery-Zaïgouche, Cléo and Annie L. Cot. 2021. Sentiment and Prejudice: Francis Ysidro Edgeworth on Women’s Wages. History of Political Economy, 53(5): 799-832.

Cifor, Marika and Stacy Wood. 2017. Critical Feminism in the Archives. Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies, 1(2): 1-27.

Cohen, Jennifer. 2022. The Queen of the Social Sciences: The Reproduction of a [White] “Man’s Field”. History of Political Economy, 54(Suppl.): 259-282.

Collins, Patricia Hill. 1986. Learning from the Outsider within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought. Social Problems33(6): s14-s32.

Collins, Patricia Hill. 2015. Black Feminist Epistemology. In Alison M. Jaggar (ed.), Just Methods: An Interdisciplinary Feminist Reader. New York: Routledge, 252-256.

Conrad, Cecilia. 2019. Feminist Economics: Second Wave, Tidal Wave, or Barely a Ripple? In Angie Maxwell and Todd Shields (eds), The Legacy of Second-Wave Feminism in American Politics. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 97-134.

Daston, Lorraine. 2009. Science Studies and the History of Science. Critical Inquiry35(4): 798-813.

Dever, Maryanne. 2017. Archives and New Modes of Feminist Research. Australian Feminist Studies, 32(91-92): 1-4.

Dimand, Mary Ann, Robert W. Dimand, and Evelyn L. Forget. 1995. Women of Value: Feminist Essays on the History of Women in Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Dimand, Robert W., Mary Ann Dimand, and Evelyn Forget. 2000. A Biographical Dictionary of Women Economists. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Dynan, Karen E. and Cecilia Elena Rouse. 1997. The Underrepresentation of Women in Economics: A Study of Undergraduate Economics Students. The Journal of Economic Education28(4): 350-368.

Ehrlich, Susan and Ruth King. 1994. Feminist Meanings and the (De)Politicization of the Lexicon. Language in Society, 23(1): 59-76.

Emami, Zohreh and Paulette I. Olson. 2002. Engendering Economics: Conversations with Women Economists in the United States. London and New York: Routledge.

Fancher, Patricia and Michael J. Faris. 2022. Social Network Analysis and Feminist Methodology. In Crystal VanKooten and Victor Del Hierro (eds), Methods and Methodologies for Research in Digital Writing and Rhetoric: Centering Positionality in Computers and Writing ScholarshipVolume 1. Denver: University Press of Colorado, 135-162.

Fernández Pinto, M. 2016. Economics Imperialism in Social Epistemology: A Critical Assessment. Philosophy of the Social Sciences46(5): 443-472.

Finden, Alice E. 2023. Counter-Mapping the Archive: A Decolonial Feminist Research Method. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 37(4): 461-482.

Freedman, Estelle B. 2013. Redefining Rape. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Folbre, Nancy. 1993. How Does She Know? Feminist Theories of Gender Bias in Economics. History of Political Economy25(1): 167-184.

Folbre, Nancy. 2009. Greed, Lust and Gender: A History of Economic Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Forget, Evelyn L. 2001a. Cultivating Sympathy. Sophie Condorcet’s Letters on Sympathy. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 23(3): 319-337.

Forget, Evelyn L. 2001b. Saint-Simonian Feminism. Feminist Economics, 7(1): 79-96.

Forget, Evelyn L. 2002. A Hunger for Narrative: Writing Lives in the History of Economic Thought. History of Political Economy, 34(Suppl.): 226-244.

Forget, Evelyn L. 2010. “At Best an Echo”: Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Translation Strategies in the History of Economics. History of Political Economy, 42(4): 653-677.

Forget, Evelyn L. 2016. Jane Marcet as Knowledge Broker. History of Economics Review, 65(1): 15-26.

Forget, Evelyn L. 2020. 2018 HES Presidential Address: Folk Wisdom in Economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 42(1): 1-18.

Frank, Chandra. 2019. Sister Outsider and Audre Lorde in the Netherlands: on Transnational Queer Feminisms and Archival Methodological Practices. Feminist Review, 121(1): 9-23.

Guizzo, Danielle. 2024. Inclusivity in Economics: The Role of Herstories in Economic Thought. Contributions to Political Economy, 43(1): 165-187.

Grant, Judith. 2015. Experience. In Dish, Lisa and Mary Hawkesworth (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 227-246.

Haraway, Donna. 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies14(3), 575-599.

Harding, Sandra G. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Harding, Sandra G. 1995a. Can Feminist Thought Make Economics more Objective? Feminist Economics1(1): 7-32.

Harding, Sandra G. 1995b. Just Add Women and Stir? In Gender Working Group, UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (ed.), Missing Links: Gender Equity in Science and Technology for Development. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 295-307.

Harding, Sandra G. 2004. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. New York: Psychology Press.

Harrison, Faye Venetia. 2008. Outsider Within: Reworking Anthropology in the Global Age. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

Hengel, Erin and Sarah Louisa Phythian-Adams. 2022. A Historical Portrait of Female Economists’ Coauthorship Networks. History of Political Economy, 54(Suppl.): 17-41.

Hewitson, Gillian. 2010. Introduction. In Drucilla Barker and Edith Kuiper (eds), Feminist Economics: Critical Concepts in Economics. Vol. IV: Epistemological and Methodological Considerations. New York: Routledge, 1-20.

Howson, Susan. 2013. The Uses of Biography and the History of Economics. History of Economics Review, 57(1): 1-15.

Jabiri, Afaf. 2024. The Continuity of Othering in Feminist Methodology: Activist-Scholar and the Insider/Outsider Dynamics. Third World Quarterly45(1): 79-94.

Kim, Marlene. 1997. Poor Women Survey Poor Women: Feminist Perspectives in Survey Research. Feminist Economics3(2): 99-117.

Kuiper, Edith. 2022. A Herstory of Economics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Lake, Marilyn. 1986. Historical Reconsiderations IV: The Politics of Respectability: Identifying the Masculinist Context. Australian Historical Studies, 22(86): 116-131.

Lal, Jayati. 2018. Situating Locations: The Politics of Self, Identity, and “Other” in Living and Writing the Text. In Diane L. Wolf (ed.), Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. New York: Routledge, 185-214.

Lundberg, Shelly and Jenna Stearns. 2019. Women in Economics: Stalled Progress. Journal of Economic Perspectives33(1): 3-22.

Madden, Janice F. 1972. The Development of Economic Thought on the “Woman Problem”. Review of Radical Political Economics, 4(3): 21-39.

Madden, Kirsten and Robert W. Dimand. 2019. Routledge Handbook of the History of Women’s Economic Thought. London: Routledge.

Marçal, Katherine. 2016. Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner? New York City: Simon and Schuster.

Matthews, Jill. 1986. Feminist History. Labour History, 50: 147-153.

May, Ann Mari. 2022. Gender and the Dismal Science: Women in the Early Years of the Economics Profession. New York City: Columbia University Press.

McCloskey, Donald N. 1983. The Rhetoric of Economics. Journal of Economic Literature21(2): 481-517.

Mercer, John. 2009. Shopping for Suffrage: The Campaign Shops of the Women’s Social and Political Union. Women’s History Review18(2): 293-309.

Mosca, Manuela, Magdalena Małecka, and Astrid Agenjo Calderòn. 2022. Women, Economics and History: Diversity within Europe. Œconomia. History, Methodology, Philosophy, 12(3): 371-378.

Nee, Victor. 2005. The New Institutionalisms in Economics and Sociology. In Neil J. Smelser and Richard Swedberg (eds), The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 49-74.

Nelson, Julie A. 1995. Feminism and Economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives9(2): 131-148.

Nencel, Lorraine. 2014. Situating Reflexivity: Voices, Positionalities and Representations in Feminist Ethnographic Texts. Women’s Studies International Forum, 43: 75-83.

Neocleous, Andreas, Giorgos Kataliakos, and Antis Loizides. 2022. Text Mining in 19th-Century Essays for Investigating a Possible Collaborative Authorship Problem: John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor Mill. IEEE Access, 10: 20937-20947.

Neumann, Cecilie Basberg and Iver B. Neumann. 2015. Uses of the Self: Two Ways of Thinking about Scholarly Situatedness and Method. Millennium43(3): 798-819.

Okune, Angela. 2020. Open Ethnographic Archiving as Feminist, Decolonizing Practice. Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience, 6(2): 1-37.

Orozco Espinel, Camila and Rebeca Gomez Betancourt. 2022. A History of the Institutionalization of Feminist Economics through Its Tensions and Founders. History of Political Economy, 54(Suppl.): 159-192.

Pearse, Rebecca and Helen Keane. 2023. How Feminist Knowledge Is Made in and beyond Disciplines. Gender and Education35(1): 1-17.

Pechurina, Anna. 2014. Positionality and Ethics in the Qualitative Research of Migrants’ Homes. Sociological Research Online19(1): 111-120.

Pester, Holly. 2017. Archive Fan-Fiction: Experimental Archive Research Methodologies and Feminist Epistemological Tactics. Feminist Review, 115(1): 114-129.

Pujol, Michèle A. 1992. Feminism and Anti-Feminism in Early Economic Thought. Brookfield: Edward Elgar.

Reger, Jo. 2020. What’s So Feminist about Archival Research. In Maura Kelly and Barbara Gurr (eds), Feminist Research in Practice. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 97-100.

Renn, Jürgen. 2015. From the History of Science to the History of Knowledge–and Back. Centaurus57(1): 37-53.

Rostek, Joanna. 2021. Women’s Economic Thought In The Romantic Age: Towards a Transdisciplinary Herstory of Economic Thought. London: Routledge.

Sangster, Joan. 1994. Telling Our Stories: Feminist Debates and the Use of Oral History. Women’s History Review, 3(1): 5-28.

Schmidt-Petri, Christoph, Michael Schefczyk, and Lilly Osburg. 2022. Who Authored On Liberty? Stylometric Evidence on Harriet Taylor Mill’s Contribution. Utilitas: 34(2): 120-138.

Seiz, Janet. 1993. Feminism and the History of Economic Thought. History of Political Economy, 25(1): 185-201.

Seiz, Janet. 2019. British Women on the British Empire. In Kirsten Madden and Robert W. Dimand (eds), Routledge Handbook of the History of Women’s Economic Thought. London and New York: Routledge, 53-72.

Settles, Barbara H. and Suzanne Steinmetz. 2013. Concepts and Definitions of Family for the 21st Century. London: Routledge.

Sigle-Rushton, Wendy. 2014. Essentially Quantified? Toward A More Feminist Modelling Strategy. In Mary Evans, Hazel Johnstone, Marsha Henry, and Clare Hemmings (eds), The Sage Handbook of Feminist Theory. London: SAGE Publications, 431-445.

Sigot, Nathalie and Christophe Beaurain. 2009. John Stuart Mill and the Employment of Married Women: Reconciling Utility and Justice. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 31(3): 281-304.

Small, Sarah F. 2022. Tracing Barbara Bergmann’s Occupational Crowding Hypothesis: A Recent History. History of Political Economy, 54(Suppl.): 193-220.

Small, Sarah F. 2023. Infusing Diversity in a History of Economic Thought Course: An Archival Study of Syllabi and Resources for Redesign. Eastern Economic Journal, 49(3): 276-311.

Small, Sarah F. 2024. What Is a Feminist Quantitative Method? Opportunities for Feminist Econometrics. Feminist Economics, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2024.2413906.

Small, Sarah F. and Elissa Braunstein. 2024. Has the Feminist Economics Intellectual Project Lost its Way? An Analysis of the Journal’s Evolution. Feminist Economics30(1): 1-39.

Snapp-Cook, Jennifer K. 2010. Now on Exhibit: Bringing Out Materials From LGBTIQ Archives. In Ellen Greenblatt (ed.), Serving LGBTIQ Library and Archives Users: Essays on Outreach Service Collections and Access. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc. Publishers, 146-153.

Sprague, Joey. 2016. Feminist Methodologies for Critical Researchers: Bridging Differences. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Stoler, Ann Laura. 2009. Along the Archival Grain. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Strassmann, Diana. 1993. The Stories of Economics and the Power of the Storyteller. History of Political Economy25(1): 147-165.

Strassmann, Diana. 1994. Feminist Thought and Economics: Or, What Do the Visigoths Know? The American Economic Review, 84(2): 153-158.

Sutherland, Tonia. 2017. Archival Amnesty: In Search of Black American Transitional and Restorative Justice. Journal of Critical Library and Information Services, 2(1): 1-2.

Truc, Alexandre, François Claveau, Catherine Herfeld, and Vincent Larivière 2024. Gender Homogeneity in Philosophy and Methodology of Economics: Evidence from Publication Patterns. GREDEG Working Paper Series, no. ck6s9_v1. Nice: Université Côte d’Azur, GREDEG.

Tyler, Gus. 2016. Look for the Union Label: History of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union. London: Routledge.

Haut de page

Notes

1 One exception is Banks’ work, which focuses on Sadie Alexander. Yet this is still focused on a thinker in the United States. Other works like Kuiper (2022), Madden and Dimand (2019), Dimand et al. (1995; 2000) as well as those in a 2022 Œconomia special issue detailed in Mosca et al. (2022) also introduce histories of women in economics, though the majority of these still focus on Global North scholars, with no or very little attention to thinkers in the Global South.

2 The practice of explicitly situating oneself in the research and offering reflexivity common in many feminist methods (Nencel, 2014; Neumann and Neumann, 2015; Lal, 2018), including that of feminist economists (Nelson, 1995; Kim, 1997).

3 While this approach may be less conventional in economics, it seems scholars agree that one must write differently in history than in what is conventionally done in applied economics papers (Alluqmani and Shamir, 2018; McCloskey, 1983).

4 Some have pointed to standpoint theories and issues of gender representation to understand how and why the feminist economics has been marginalized within economics, especially compared feminist offshoots in other social sciences (Truc et al., 2024; Pearse and Keane, 2023). Recent work by May (2022) offers a closer look at these questions, with her detailed overview of women’s underrepresentation in economics and some of its consequences on research breadth. Bayer and Rouse (2016), Lundberg and Stearns (2019), and Dynan and Rouse (1997) also raise important concerns about the lack of diversity in economics and it affects research and thinking in the field.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Sarah F. Small et Laura Beltran-Figueroa, « What Is a Feminist Approach to Research in the History of Economic Thought? Methods in the Field »Œconomia, 15-1 | 2025, 5-29.

Référence électronique

Sarah F. Small et Laura Beltran-Figueroa, « What Is a Feminist Approach to Research in the History of Economic Thought? Methods in the Field »Œconomia [En ligne], 15-1 | 2025, mis en ligne le 01 mars 2025, consulté le 13 décembre 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/oeconomia/18355 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/14q2h

Haut de page

Auteurs

Sarah F. Small

Department of Economics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. sarah.small@utah.edu

Laura Beltran-Figueroa

Center for Women and Work, School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA. lb1111@smlr.rutgers.edu

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search