Placing Feminist Education Within the Three Paradigms of Knowledge and Action*

• Author: Áine M. Humble,Carol. A. Morgaine
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2002.00199.x
• Published date: 01 July 2002
• Date: 01 July 2002

2002, Vol. 51, No. 3 199

innovat ive strategies &t echniques

innovative strategies &techniques

Placing Feminist Education Within the Three Paradigms of

Knowledge and Action*

A

´ine M. Humble** and Carol. A. Morgaine

Use of the three paradigms of knowledge and action (instrumental-technical, interpretive, and critical-emancipatory) to achieve the

goals of feminist family education is explored. Each paradigm is described, including its underlying assumptions and when it is useful

to use. Feminist methods in selected Family Relations articles between 1988–1999 are examined for their illustration of the three

paradigms. Various challenges in using the interpretive and critical-emancipatory paradigms also are discussed.

In the past 13 years, educational approaches designed to fur-

ther feminism have become more widely acknowledged and

discussed in family studies. Feminist educators seek to in-

crease students’ awareness of, sensitivity to, and critical reflec-

tion of (a) the experiences of women in families (Allen, 1988),

(b) the multiple realities of families attributable to diversity in

structure, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, age,disabil-

ity, and class (Thompson, 1995; Walker, 1993), and (c) the con-

tinued imbalance of power between women and men in families

(Allen & Baber, 1992). Implied in these purposes is a call for

educators to promote social change by facilitating students’ ex-

amination of their beliefs and behaviors. Initial articles dealing

with feminist family studies education appeared in Family Re-

lations in a 1988 special section called ‘‘Feminism and Family

Studies,’’ where Walker, Martin, and Thompson called for fem-

inist practitioners to write about their experiences of trying to

implement the goals of feminism.

Beginning with the 1988 issue, various Family Relations

articles have contributed to our understanding of how feminist

purposes, assumptions, and approaches can be utilized in learn-

ing situations (see as examples, Allen, 1995; Allen & Baber,

1992; MacDermid, Jurich, Myers-Wall, & Pelo, 1992; Marks,

1995; Thompson, 1995; Walker, 1993). As part of our ongoing

journeys as feminist educators (one near the start of her career

and the other more established), we looked forward to such ar-

ticles and read them when they were published. However, we

noticed that the number of explicitly feminist pedagogical arti-

cles had decreased recently, with the last obvious articles being

published in Family Relations in 1995 (see Baber & Murray,

2001, for a recent exception). On one hand, we found ourselves

wondering whether feminism had been integrated into the dis-

cipline enough so it was no longer necessary to delineate clearly

that a feminist perspective was being used. On the other hand,

*This is a revised version of a teaching round table presented at the Annual Confer-

ence of the National Council on Family Relations, Portland, OR, November 1995. This

article was partially funded by fellowships to the first author from the AmericanAssociation

of Family and Consumer Sciences and the Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil

of Canada.

**Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, 322 Milam Hall,Oregon

State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 (humblea@ucs.orst.edu).

Key Words: family life education, feminism, pedagogy.

(Family Relations, 2002, 51, 199–205)

we wondered whether the topic had run its course. Certainly

topics wax and wane over the years. Although we do not have

a definitive answer to this, we argue that feminist principles con-

tinue to be relevant within family studies.

We seek to stimulate renewed interest in feminist pedagogy.

Toward this end, we propose a conceptual framework to guide

the intentional, reflexive work by both new and seasoned edu-

cators who wish to incorporate feminist principles into their

practice. Specifically, this article can help educators frame their

practice within the conceptual framework of alternative para-

digms of knowledge and action (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). Having

used this framework ourselves, we believe it has helped us de-

velop a more thorough understanding of our practice and con-

tributed to our facilitation of a more just society. First, we justify

the need for a conceptual framework. Then, we describe alter-

native paradigms of knowledge and action and review the related

literature. We describe the assumptions of each paradigm and

provide examples of appropriate applications. Finally, we offer

suggestions for new and seasoned family life educators to con-

sider when using the alternative paradigms.

The Need for a Conceptual Framework

As the field of family studies began to emerge, theorists

organized their inquiries around conceptual frameworks such as

structural functionalism and family development theory (e.g.,

Burr, Hill, Nye, & Reiss, 1979). The use of conceptual frame-

works grew out of the multidisciplinary study of families (Thom-

as & Wilcox, 1987). They are thought to provide an orientation

for examining social situations by stating theoretical propositions

induced from research findings and are used as a way to develop

an academic ‘‘tradition of introspection and reassessment’’

(Howard, 1975, p. 183).

We reviewed articles published in Family Relations dealing

with feminist family science and family life education from Jan-

uary 1988 to July 1999. Feminist educators stressed the impor-

tance of paying close attention to issues of power in the teacher-

student relationship (Allen, 1988; MacDermid et al., 1992), en-

couraged community involvement (Allen & Baber, 1992), and

offered lists of feminist resources for others to use (Thompson,

1988; Walker, 1993). A special series of articles on ‘‘impassioned

teaching’’ (1995) included insightful articles by Allen, Marks,

Thompson, and Lewis that dealt with issues of self disclosure

and multiculturalism. These descriptions of concerns and tech-