研究我们反对的人:研究网上反女权主义女性的反身性伦理框架

IF 1.9 3区 社会学 Q2 WOMENS STUDIES
Pauline Hoebanx
{"title":"研究我们反对的人:研究网上反女权主义女性的反身性伦理框架","authors":"Pauline Hoebanx","doi":"10.1016/j.wsif.2025.103196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>How can researchers ethically study online communities whose values fundamentally oppose their own? This article addresses the ethical dilemmas of conducting digital fieldwork with antifeminist women's communities. Drawing from netnographic research in four women's manosphere communities, Red Pill Women, Femcels, the Honey Badger Brigade, and Mothers of Sons, I develop a reflexive, feminist framework for ethical decision-making in politically contentious digital spaces. Rather than offering fixed rules, the framework consists of three sets of guiding questions that help researchers navigate ethical tensions at different stages of their project: when entering the field, during data collection, and throughout analysis. These questions are grounded in feminist epistemology, which prioritizes situated knowledge over claims to universal objectivity. I argue that studying ideologically oppositional communities does not require emotional alignment or political solidarity. Instead, it demands critical self-awareness and ethical transparency. The article highlights how antifeminist women's communities raise distinct challenges for digital research: their ideological complexity, gendered expectations of privacy, and resistance to academic inquiry all complicate the ethics of observation, interpretation, and representation. The framework presented here speaks to broader challenges in internet research and feminist methodology, offering tools for scholars working in polarized political contexts, especially with subjects who do not welcome the feminist researcher's gaze.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47940,"journal":{"name":"Womens Studies International Forum","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 103196"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Studying those we oppose: A reflexive ethical framework for researching antifeminist women online\",\"authors\":\"Pauline Hoebanx\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.wsif.2025.103196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>How can researchers ethically study online communities whose values fundamentally oppose their own? This article addresses the ethical dilemmas of conducting digital fieldwork with antifeminist women's communities. Drawing from netnographic research in four women's manosphere communities, Red Pill Women, Femcels, the Honey Badger Brigade, and Mothers of Sons, I develop a reflexive, feminist framework for ethical decision-making in politically contentious digital spaces. Rather than offering fixed rules, the framework consists of three sets of guiding questions that help researchers navigate ethical tensions at different stages of their project: when entering the field, during data collection, and throughout analysis. These questions are grounded in feminist epistemology, which prioritizes situated knowledge over claims to universal objectivity. I argue that studying ideologically oppositional communities does not require emotional alignment or political solidarity. Instead, it demands critical self-awareness and ethical transparency. The article highlights how antifeminist women's communities raise distinct challenges for digital research: their ideological complexity, gendered expectations of privacy, and resistance to academic inquiry all complicate the ethics of observation, interpretation, and representation. The framework presented here speaks to broader challenges in internet research and feminist methodology, offering tools for scholars working in polarized political contexts, especially with subjects who do not welcome the feminist researcher's gaze.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Womens Studies International Forum\",\"volume\":\"113 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103196\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Womens Studies International Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539525001451\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"WOMENS STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Womens Studies International Forum","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539525001451","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"WOMENS STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究人员如何从伦理上研究那些价值观与自己截然相反的在线社区?这篇文章讨论了在反女权主义女性社区进行数字实地调查的伦理困境。根据对四个女性管理圈社区(红丸女性、Femcels、蜜獾旅和儿子的母亲)的网络学研究,我为政治上有争议的数字空间中的道德决策制定了一个反身性的女权主义框架。该框架不是提供固定的规则,而是由三组指导性问题组成,这些问题可以帮助研究人员在项目的不同阶段(进入该领域时、数据收集期间和整个分析过程)处理伦理紧张关系。这些问题是基于女权主义认识论的,它优先考虑情境知识,而不是对普遍客观性的要求。我认为,研究意识形态对立的社区并不需要情感上的一致或政治上的团结。相反,它需要批判性的自我意识和道德透明度。这篇文章强调了反女权主义的女性社区如何给数字研究带来了独特的挑战:她们的意识形态复杂性、对隐私的性别期望以及对学术探究的抵制,都使观察、解释和表现的伦理复杂化。这里提出的框架说明了互联网研究和女权主义方法论面临的更广泛挑战,为在两极分化的政治背景下工作的学者提供了工具,特别是那些不欢迎女权主义研究者目光的主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Studying those we oppose: A reflexive ethical framework for researching antifeminist women online
How can researchers ethically study online communities whose values fundamentally oppose their own? This article addresses the ethical dilemmas of conducting digital fieldwork with antifeminist women's communities. Drawing from netnographic research in four women's manosphere communities, Red Pill Women, Femcels, the Honey Badger Brigade, and Mothers of Sons, I develop a reflexive, feminist framework for ethical decision-making in politically contentious digital spaces. Rather than offering fixed rules, the framework consists of three sets of guiding questions that help researchers navigate ethical tensions at different stages of their project: when entering the field, during data collection, and throughout analysis. These questions are grounded in feminist epistemology, which prioritizes situated knowledge over claims to universal objectivity. I argue that studying ideologically oppositional communities does not require emotional alignment or political solidarity. Instead, it demands critical self-awareness and ethical transparency. The article highlights how antifeminist women's communities raise distinct challenges for digital research: their ideological complexity, gendered expectations of privacy, and resistance to academic inquiry all complicate the ethics of observation, interpretation, and representation. The framework presented here speaks to broader challenges in internet research and feminist methodology, offering tools for scholars working in polarized political contexts, especially with subjects who do not welcome the feminist researcher's gaze.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
63
审稿时长
79 days
期刊介绍: Women"s Studies International Forum (formerly Women"s Studies International Quarterly, established in 1978) is a bimonthly journal to aid the distribution and exchange of feminist research in the multidisciplinary, international area of women"s studies and in feminist research in other disciplines. The policy of the journal is to establish a feminist forum for discussion and debate. The journal seeks to critique and reconceptualize existing knowledge, to examine and re-evaluate the manner in which knowledge is produced and distributed, and to assess the implications this has for women"s lives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信