The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Feminist Criticism of the Social Sciences
Abstract
The tensions and contradictions that permeate women's lives simultaneously create the potential for both alienation and liberation. These antithetical conditions form the outline of the debate within the social sciences concerning the interpretation of women's experiences. Marcia Westkott discusses the feminist criticism of the content,method, and purpose of knowledge about women as defined by the social sciences, and offers a dialectical alternative to conventional analyses.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought
Collins, P. H. (1986) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/800672 · Cited by 3,536
Dual coding theory and education
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/bf01320076 · Cited by 2,108
Focus Groups: A Feminist Method
Wilkinson, S. (1999) · Psychology of Women Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00355.x · Cited by 401
Metadata
- Authors
- Westkott, M.
- Venue
- Harvard Educational Review
- Publisher
- Harvard Education Publishing Group
- Published
- 1979-12-01
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 422-430
- ISSN
- 0017-8055 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-5045
- OpenAlex
- W262393100
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Feminist Criticism of the Social Sciences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.17763/haer.49.4.b103114415055218
- The paper
- Westkott, M. (1979). Feminist Criticism of the Social Sciences. Harvard Educational Review. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.49.4.b103114415055218
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
