The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives.
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
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20237 · Cited by 2,433
Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression
Dotson, K. (2014) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2013.782585 · Cited by 1,232
Relational Knowing and Epistemic Injustice: Toward a Theory of Willful Hermeneutical Ignorance
Pohlhaus, G. (2012) · Hypatia · doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01222.x · Cited by 745
The Method Section as Conceptual Epicenter in Constructing Social Science Research Reports
Smagorinsky, P. (2008) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088308317815 · Cited by 549
Held, M. B. E. (2019) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406918821574 · Cited by 281
Metadata
- Authors
- Connell, R. W., & Harding, S.
- Venue
- Contemporary Sociology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1992-07
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 536
- ISSN
- 0094-3061 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4255492275
- Cited by
- 2,641
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 226.53
- 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: Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2075914
- The paper
- Connell, R. W., & Harding, S. (1992). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives. Contemporary Sociology. https://doi.org/10.2307/2075914
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.
