Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explain how student‐written diaries and journals serve as a specifically feminist pedagogy for teaching feminist economics, thereby challenging the lecture‐based techniques used to teach and uphold the mainstream, market‐fundamentalist paradigm.

The approach involves the author's observations and experiences using student‐written diaries to teach a feminist economics course.

Student‐written diaries have the potential to dislodge both the market‐fundamentalist economics paradigm and the lecture‐based teaching method that dominate the undergraduate economics curriculum. Student‐written diaries are especially useful in teaching feminist economics courses which strive to elevate women's economic status and/or to reduce the androcentric bias in economics. The paper describes how student‐written diaries are used to achieve both of these goals and to create a more inclusive classroom culture, while simultaneously challenging market fundamentalism.

The paper offers a new pedagogical technique to be used for teaching feminist economics courses and for countering lecture‐based courses that focus on market fundamentalism.

Investigates two issues raised by D.C. Moore: the apparent failure of critical accounting theory to launch and sustain a critical programme and relative lack of critical accounting activity in the USA. These concerns are related in that radicalization and change of one′s own academic discipline would seem to be one of the highest‐priority political activities to be undertaken by critical theorists. Offers feminist economics as an example of a critical social theory that meets Moore′s four criteria for successful criteria endeavour and is applicable to accounting research. Compares the feminist economic critique with critiques of accounting by Cooper, and by Shearer and Arrington, based on the French feminist philosophers. The two approaches differ in goals and politics. Suggests that the experience of feminist economics in reforming economics also provides insights into the slow growth of critical accounting theory in the USA.

This contribution explores the history of women and feminism in the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) using concepts from feminist radical political economy. A feminist approach changes the categories of economic analysis to offer a new interpretation of an older history: the formation of the Women’s Caucus. I reread the early history of the feminist project in economics through the lens of social reproduction to understand the influence of life experience on practice, particularly on the 1971 women’s walkout during a URPE conference, and on economic theory. Highlighting women’s multiple roles, as graduate students, mothers, wives, girlfriends, and/or caregivers – but ultimately as women – reveals social reproduction as a site of radical politics and demonstrates the importance of reproductive labor for understanding solidarity. In doing so, the analysis provides an example of how a feminist perspective contributes uniquely to economics.

Can we broaden the boundaries of the history of economic thought to include positionalities articulated by grassroots movements? Following Keynes’s famous remark from General Theory that ‘practical men […] are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,’ we might be wont to dismiss such a push from below. While it is sometimes true that grassroots movements channel preexisting economic thought, I wish to argue that grassroots economic thought can also precede developments subsequently elaborated by economists. This paper considers such a case: by women at the intersection of the women’s liberation movement and the claimants’ unions movement in 1970s Britain. Oral historical and archival work on these working-class women and on achievements such as their succeeding to establish unconditional basic income as an official demand of the British Women’s Liberation Movement forms the springboard for my reconstruction of the grassroots feminist economic thought underpinning the women’s basic income demand. I hope to demonstrate, firstly, how this was a prefiguration of ideas later developed by feminist economists and philosophers; secondly, how unique it was for its time and a consequence of the intersectionality of class, gender, race, and dis/ability. Thirdly, I should like to suggest that bringing into the fold this particular grassroots feminist economic thought on basic income would widen the mainstream understanding and historiography of the idea of basic income. Lastly, I hope to make the point that, within the history of economic thought, grassroots economic thought ought to be heeded far more than it currently is.

This paper aims to bring to the fore the importance of feminist epistemologies in the history of the organization of management studies since the 1980s by following various intellectual moves in the development of feminist theorizing as they cross over to organization studies, including their analytical possibilities for reclaiming historically the voices of major women scholars, especially in doctoral seminars. The paper narrates these epistemological activities by mobilizing and reconsidering from the past to the present, the notions of “unmuting,” “mutating” and “mutiny.” It ends in a reflection addressing the state of business schools at present and why the field of organization and management studies needs “mutiny” now.

The paper adopts a narrative approach in which the voices of its authors appear to be central as they consider and reconsider over time their understanding of “unmuting,” “mutation” and “mutiny” as notions with analytical potential. This approach is influenced by Foucault’s “history of the present” but with contingencies brought about by feminist interpretations. The application of these notions is demonstrated by reclaiming and clarifying the epistemological underpinning in the works of three major women scholars as included in a doctoral seminar: Mary Parker Follett, Edith Penrose and Rosabeth Moss Kanter. These notions are further redeployed for their potential in institutional applications.

At present, the findings are discursive – if they can be called so, but the main motivation behind this writing is to go beyond discourse in the written sense, and to mobilize other activities, still in the realm of epistemological and scholarly work. These activities would legitimize actual interventions for changing business schools from their current situation as neoliberal entities, which mute understanding of major problems in the world, as well as the voices of most humans and non-humans paying for the foibles of neoliberalism.

The paper demonstrates the necessity of developing approaches for interventions in knowledge producing institutions increasingly limited by neoliberal premises in what can be said and done as legitimate knowledge. In doing this, the paper articulates the importance of keeping history alive to avoid the increasing “forgetfulness” neoliberalization brings about. The paper, in its present form, represents an active act of “remembering”.

Mechanisms that measure the social impact of work integration social enterprises (WISEs) activate a dialogue between the language and principles of economics and the lived-reality of marginalised groups. This paper aims to critically strengthen social impact measurement as a process by ascertaining epistemic gaps in the methodology of a dominant measure, based on an exploratory case study of a social enterprise supporting immigrant women in Sweden.

The author undertook participant observation and informal interviews with managers at Yalla Trappan – a women’s cooperative social enterprise in Malmö, Sweden – for the integration of long-term unemployed, immigrant women into the labour market. Through an interpretivist framework, themes of “social sustainability” and “feminist economics” formed a theoretical inquiry for data collection within the organisation and resulting in a critical discussion of the social return on investment (SROI) method.

The case study of women’s cooperative social enterprise is seen to challenge some systemic assumptions made by the SROI metric through its validation of knowledges and economic principles which are congruent with feminist epistemologies. The relationship between social and work life is re-configured by the organisation for the specific features of its beneficiary group (in which gender is a determining factor), with implications for intergenerational cohesion, past trauma resolution and positive postpartum practices that present challenges to a SROI measurement process.

This study applies a distinctive disciplinary understanding of feminist economics and epistemologies onto the relatively new field of social sustainability and innovation, illustrating its critique through the impact on practical steps that may be taken in the process of a dominant social impact measure (SROI).

A review essay on Postmodernism, Economics and Knowledge. Edited by Stephen Cullenberg, Jack Amariglio and David F. Ruccio. London: Routledge, 2001. p. 495. Most economists agree that economic knowledge has gradually increased as more facts and data have been accumulated to support (or reject) theories. That is, economic knowledge and progress of the discipline have benefited from the scientific method. While not disputing this modernist conception of historical progress in economics, the articles in the volume consistently urge a broader discourse in economics, suggesting that without an expanded discourse economics will, as Hutchison (1979) argues, be “destined for a somewhat ambiguous and problematic place in the spectrum of knowledge” (p. 4). This edited volume discusses and seeks to discover what the postmodernist movement can add to broad economic discourse.

The economics literature on gender has expanded considerably in recent years, fueled in part by new sources of data, including from experimental studies of gender differences in preferences and other traits. At the same time, economists have been developing more realistic models of psychological and social influences on individual choices and the evolution of culture and social norms. Despite these innovations, much of the economics of gender has been left behind, and still employs a reductive framing in which gender gaps in economic outcomes are either due to discrimination or to “choice.” I suggest here that the persistence of this approach is due to several distinctive economic habits of mind – strong priors driven by market bias and gender essentialism, a perspective that views the default economic agent as male, and an oft-noted tendency to avoid complex problems in favor of those that can be modeled simply. I also suggest some paths forward.

This chapter will explore how different feminist theories and theorists have informed what counts as research, what is defined as a research issue, and methodological approaches to research in higher education. It will consider the theoretical and methodological tools feminist academics have mobilized in order to develop more powerful explanations of how gender and other forms of difference work in the relation to the positioning of the individual, higher education and the nation state within globalized economies. It pays particular regard to the feminist political project of social justice.