CONTENTS

Introduction

Methodological Breakthroughs and Boundaries

The Geography of Feminist Economics

Geographic Perspectives on Gender and Development

Background to Gender and Development

Contemporary Gender and Development

The Future of Gender and Development

Gender and Cultural Geography

Gender, Identity, and Space

Identity in Context

Difference and Deconstruction

Nationalism, Identity, and Transnationalism

Sexuality, Identity, and Spaces of the Body

The Body and Medical Geography

Challenges for the Future: (Re)Presenting Gender and Space

Feminist Pedagogy and Teaching in Geography

Institutional barriers to and opportunities for feminist pedagogy

Practicing Feminism Inside and Outside the Classroom

Figure 1. Status of Women in the AAG, 1974-97

Table 1.Traditions within feminist geographic research

Introduction

The thematic topics presented in this chapter address feminist analyses of methodology, gender and work, Third World development, cultural geography, identity and difference, and pedagogy.This discussion is by no means exhaustive, but addresses those issues that have been particularly influential during the 1990s. While feminist geographers have drawn on, and contributed to, research outside the discipline, this chapter will largely focus on work undertaken by researchers more formally associated with geography.The discussion also includes work by non-American geographers due to the collaborative and international nature of feminist geography that makes it difficult to limit research to one country.The cross-fertilization of ideas and experiences is evident in the growing number of conferences, publications, institutional exchanges, and research endeavors that involve a variety of feminist scholars from multiple disciplines and nationalities.

According to the editors of this book, our charge was to write an assessment of feminist geography that is “comprehensive, current, forward-looking, and influential.”The task of writing this chapter has occurred in a participatory and collaborative manner that reflects feminist projects.Before proceeding to the content of the chapter, the authors are introduced along with a few words about the process of writing this chapter.We represent a diverse group of scholars in terms of our positions in the academy, areas of specialization, and institutional affiliations.Our interest in feminist geography is shaped by our involvement and background in a variety of specializations that include cultural, political, development, economic, and medical geography.The diversity of our approaches will be evident in a manner that, it is hoped, does not detract from, but enriches our analysis.

To capture the full flavor of the subfield and incorporate the voices of other feminist geographers, we solicited input through a survey distributed on the GPOW listserv and a presentation at the 1999 annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers (AAG).The survey was administered in October of 1998 and raised questions about the following topics: how people became involved in gender geography; major theories, concepts, and/or methods that have impacted the subfield; noteworthy articles and books; the role of feminist pedagogy and other professional activities in geography; and future directions of the subfield.The survey generated responses that guided our discussions about the subfield and its contribution to geography.The diversity of respondents in regards to ideological background, nationality, and position in higher education was particularly useful in capturing a wide range of feminist perspectives. 

In addition, the survey helped us articulate major themes and future directions in feminist geography, as well as providing personal stories about experiences as faculty and students in the discipline.Two themes surfaced from the surveys and are referred to in several sections of this chapter.First, nearly all the respondents mentioned the personal dimensions of their involvement in feminist geography.This came out in explanations about how they came into the subfield due to their commitment to feminism, the support gained from professional networks in the subfield (especially important where female mentors are absent in departments and institutions), and the role of feminism in their own lives.A faculty member in a prominent geography department, Vera Chouinard, remarked that she “became interested as a graduate student but personal experiences of barriers to women in academic geography and beyond really fueled that interest.”Another faculty member, AlthaCravey, stated that her employment as a construction worker for ten years was instrumental in shaping her academic research on the gendering of work.The links between personal experiences and academic endeavors among feminists are well illustrated by these quotes and relate to the topics outlined in the discussions below. 

A second theme in many of the surveys was the relevance of feminist research to research topics within geography.For example, several people entered this area because they discovered the importance of feminism and gender to migration, identity politics, economic restructuring, and post-structuralism.One respondent commented about her interest as an undergraduate in population geography and the importance of gender to this area of study.“It occurred to me that population was a ‘woman’s issue’ – you had to reflect women’s experiences when discussing population rather than simply crunching numbers to develop demographic models.”Indeed, decades of research in feminist geography demonstrates that women, gender, and feminism are critical aspects of most areas of geographical inquiry.

This chapter is organized into eight sections whose analyses address the development of feminist thought in each of these areas.The discussion emphasizes the dynamic and interrelated nature of these topics.In the second section, feminist methodology is examined as an area that has made major contributions to the discipline as a whole.Feminist research includes a multitude of methods that challenge conventional approaches and are based on epistemological claims that value everyday experiences and knowledge that lies outside the dominant realm.Gender and work is examined in the third section.This was an important topic among early feminists in the discipline and continues to advance geographic analyses of labor markets, workforce diversity, and the culture of work and economic organizations.The fourth section provides an overview of how feminist geography intersects with gender and development and analyses of third-world globalization.This broad and expanding area in the subfield has made important contributions to environmental studies and political ecology.

The cultural dimensions of contemporary feminist geography are explored in the fifth section.Feminism has widened the scope of cultural geography, confronting masculinist perspectives on landscape and offering a feminist understanding of culture that recognizes cultural identity and social constructions of place.The sixth section examines perhaps one of the most interdisciplinary and dynamic approaches in feminist geography, gendered identity and the politics of difference and diversity.This analysis outlines how power and knowledge are reproduced through identity, gender, representation, and space, yet stresses the need to interrogate and break down these terms.The seventh section addresses pedagogy as part of the praxis of feminist geography.Many of us are engaged in teaching as a form of praxis within institutions of higher education, but also in our communities and social networks.The discussion highlights the crucial role of feminism in our pedagogical approaches.

The final section addresses the overall position of feminist geography in the discipline and speculates on the future directions of this area of study.Our analysis reinforces the need to ground our work and not lose sight of the material basis of difference and inequality in our society.The multiple and dynamic discourses in the field of feminist geography are impacting the discipline and will continue to advance our thinking about social relations and spatial processes into the twenty-first century. 

Methodological Breakthroughs and Boundaries 

Four traditions within feminist geographic research are outlined here in to their dominant theoretical approaches, methodological concerns, and selected research topics (Table 1).As indicated in the text, these four traditions are by no means distinct phases, but represent a general shift of ideas in feminist geographical research.This section focuses on the methodological issues that have shaped feminist research in the 1990s, specifically, the subject/object relationship, the multiple modes or techniques employed in feminist research, and the politics of research. 

(Table 1. Traditions Within Feminist Geographic Researchhere)

Early feminist geography was based on feminist empiricism and a critique of positivist research methods that focus on objectivity and the privileging of certain forms of knowledge.This work provided important critiques of sexist biases or androcentrism in geographic research (Table 1).Monk and Hanson (1982), for example, claimed that conventional geographic research failed to account for women’s experiences in studies of migration, travel patterns, employment trends, and livelihood strategies.These claims paralleled widespread challenges to positivist methodologies that separated the object from the subject of research to ensure neutral and value-free research.

In contrast, the underlying assumptions in feminist approaches highlight subjectivity and biases inherent in the research process (McDowell 1992a; Staeheli and Lawson 1995).England (1994) notes that this type of research allows the personal and partial aspect of research to surface.Over the past two decades, feminist geography has increasingly challenged the basis of geographic knowledge in efforts to highlight how the relationship between power and epistemology is central to methodological discussions.Nast (1994: 55), for example, examines how the fundamental difference in the sociospatial organization of women’s and men’s lives “has fostered ways of knowing or epistemologies that are different from those of men.”Thus, understanding the social dimensions of lived experiences and their relationship to how they inform research agendas and knowledge claims are crucial to feminist methodology.

The notion of subjectivity in feminist research raises critical questions about the basic assumptions of how knowledge and power influence the research process.Feminist geography does not draw a clear line between “researcher” and “researched,” recognizing that researchers themselves are part of the social structure of the project (Women and Geography Study Group 1997).This is illustrated in Gilbert’s (1994, 1998) work on survival strategies of low-income women and the role of networks in finding various social and economic support systems.During her fieldwork for this project, she confronted the sometimes “messy” relationship between herself as an academic researcher and the women she interviewed.

The social and spatial situatedness of researchers and the communities they are studying also emphasizes the importance of relationality and reflexivity in fieldwork (Table 1).Nagar’s (1997) ethnographic research on Tanzanian Asians includes fieldwork in a community that she describes as a kaleidoscope of social sites of segregated, gendered, classed, raced, and communalized spaces.She claims that people’s perceptions of her “continually shaped the structure and interpretation of the narratives that were produced in the course of my work” (Nagar 1997: 208).In contrast to masculinist research that defines who participates and what questions are posed, feminist methodology emphasizes the subjective and reflexive nature of research.For numerous scholars, this involves the participants by letting them guide the questioning and help define the terms of fieldwork (Rocheleau 1995; Townsend et al. 1995). 

Additionally, the manner in which feminist research is conducted involves multiple methods and techniques that are appropriate to the social context and purpose of the research.Feminist geographers draw from a wide variety of qualitative and quantitative methods that have enriched our understanding of the complex conceptual and empirical aspects of research.A major contribution to this discussion was the collection of articles in The Professional Geographer (1994,1995) that critically addressed the complexities and politics of ‘fieldwork’ and examined the role of quantitative methodology in feminist geographic research.While the emphasis in much of feminist geography is on qualitative methods, McLafferty (1995: 438) states that “quantitative methods are well suited to describe and probe the main aspects of women’s lives, to analyze spatial association, and to document spatial and temporal inequalities.”In addition to quantitative analyses, excellent examples of qualitative methods such as ethnography (Dyck 1993; Nagar 1998), life histories (Townsend et al. 1995), intensive interviews (Gilbert 1998; Oberhauser 1997), and visual arts (Monk and Norwood 1987) demonstrate how a variety of approaches allows us to understand the materiality and meaning of women’s experiences.The goal is to highlight the complementary nature of multiple research methods to search for and understand relevant patterns and trends. 

Permeating the epistemology, subjectivity, and multiple methods of feminist research discussed above is the political agenda of feminist research. (see Table 1.)An implicit goal of this approach is to uncover and challenge power relations within the research process and underlying the topic of study.For example, Oberhauser (1997) examines the multiple aspects of power relations in the domestic sphere as both a site of income generation and a “field” of research.The social location of participants has been carefully addressed by many who seek to reveal and work around the “social terrain” of the field, if not to overcome the potentially exploitative nature of researching “the other” (Nast 1994).Gibson-Graham (199­4) addresses this issue in her research on women in mining communities in central Queensland, Australia. She successfully employed members of the community to undertake workshops and assist in the overall project as a means of empowering and involving the subjects in the research process.Likewise, Rocheleau’s (1995) project on resource management in the Dominican Republic incorporated participatory research to uncover the gendered structure of forestry projects.The important lesson in this type of research is the need to be aware of the social contexts and consequences in which research takes place.As numerous feminist projects demonstrate, the recursive relationships between gender, class, ethnicity, age, and sexuality structure dominant power relations and therefore, political struggles and activism (Katz and Monk 1993; Momsen and Kinnaird 1993;Radcliffe and Westwood 1993).

In sum, the 1990s have been a decade of phenomenal advances and lively debates in feminist geographic methodology.It remains a cornerstone of much of this subfield as more attention is paid to diversity and critical representation of the subjects of research.There remains considerable work to be done, however.Hanson (1997) articulates the need to open up new horizons in feminist geography by devising approaches that will reveal the unexpected and not affirm what one already believes.As discussed above, these approaches may involve experimenting with new methods, exploring a combination of methods, or involving other collaborators to understand better what we know and, more importantly, how we came to know it. 

The Geography of Feminist Economics

First, feminist theory challenges masculinist approaches that neglect the role of gender in economic processes.Examples of gender biases in conventional economic geography reflect the aggregation of workforce data with the implicit assumption that male and female work experiences are similar.Increasing attention to empirical differences in men’s and women’s economic activities has affected theoretical and methodological approaches that no longer ignore the implications of gender in economic behavior (Hanson and Pratt 1995).

Second, feminist geography considers multiple social relations that impact and are impacted by the economy.Contemporary feminist theory, and post-structuralism in particular, have opened up economic analyses to gender as well as race, ethnicity, age, sexuality, and other forms of power and identity in society (Gilbert 1998; Peake 1993).These social constructions are critical in examining economic processes such as the location of factories, industrial restructuring, household income-generating strategies, and other economic processes.

Third, feminist geography has influenced methodological issues concerning what questions are asked and how research is conducted in economic geography.Drawing from the discussion and Table 1 in the previous section, feminist research questions male-biased assumptions about who is the primary contributor to household and indeed national economies. The prevalence of activities outside the formal waged labor force demand that we shift our approach to research to obtain a better understanding of women and gender issues in the workforce and the household (Folbre 1994; Oberhauser 1995).Qualitative research methods such as intensive interviews, participant observation, and personal narratives are commonly used in feminist research and can be usefully applied in economic analyses.The remainder of this discussion draws from these themes to outline four trends in the development of feminist economic geography.These trends do not necessarily represent separate and consecutive phases, but reflect the general development of thinking in feminist geography. 

During the 1970s and early 1980s, feminist empiricism examined the spatial distribution of women’s work on national and global scales as a means of “counting” women and acknowledging their economic contribution to society (Table 1).Early empirical analyses described the discipline as androcentric due to the marginal role and status of females in the discipline (Lee and Schultz 1982) and the neglect of women’s experiences in geographic inquiry (Mazey and Lee 1983; Monk and Hanson 1982).Gender and work was an important theme in this early literature because it highlighted women’s inequality in the home, the workplace, and society as a whole (Bowlby et al. 1989; Monk and Hanson 1982). 

The second trend had its roots in political economy or Marxist geography.Some of the earliest pieces on women and work appeared during the late 1970s and early 1980s and were couched solidly within a historical materialist framework with a strong focus on gender and employment in urban areas (Hayford 1974; Mackenzie and Rose 1983). The influence of socialist feminism was important during this period as patriarchy and capitalism were used to explain how gender roles and divisions of labor contribute to social and economic inequality (Mackenzie 1989; Bowlby et al. 1989). 

Many of the respondents to the survey noted the importance of socialist feminism and Marxism to the development of ideas and the strengthening of community within feminist geography.Vera Chouinard, for example, remarked that, ‘socialist feminist theory has been important in encouraging analyses of gender as one of many relations of inequality and oppression in our societies.Personally, training in Marxist geography was important in encouraging consideration of how relations such as gender are actively contested and sometimes changed in the course of struggles against oppression.’Other feminists trained in geography during the 1970s and early 1980s found a sense of camaraderie among socialist geographers that is evident in their work today.Damaris Rose notes the importance of this group during her graduate education and especially the presence of certain students who have gone on to significantly influence this subfield. 

I started graduate school where I met Suzanne Mackenzie as another new graduate student who had come from BC and was doing “women’s studies.”I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what this had to do with geography! Within a short while she and I and several others were involved in a reading group on Marxist theory and the city, where among other things we were trying to grapple with extending concepts such as the reproduction of labour power. 1

These accounts demonstrate that during the 1970s and 1980s, much of feminist geography was emerging from socialist geography and formed part of a critical school of thought in the discipline. 

The third trend in feminist economic geography has extended social categories to include other forms of power and identity such as race, ethnicity, and sexuality.This trend addressed the complexity of gender and work in diverse geographical and socioeconomic contexts and led to a reconceptualization of spatial processes that occur outside the formal boundaries of public workplaces.In particular, these approaches were helpful in opening up social categories that allowed us to deconstruct dominant notions of women and work to include globalization, informal activities, and immigrant labor.Globalization and the increasing incorporation of women in the economies of developing regions accentuate the fluid boundaries of work and home and formal and informal economic activities (Faulkner and Lawson 1991; Hays-Mitchell 1993; Lawson 1995; Oberhauser 1995).This area of feminist research includes a theoretically diverse and empirically rich literature that offers critical perspectives on the contested role of gender as it is mediated by race, ethnicity, sexuality, class, and geographical contexts (Marchand and Parpart 1995; Momsen and Kinnaird 1993).

The link between women’s economic strategies in an era of global restructuring and the social construction of gender identity raises questions regarding the categories of analysis and universalizing assumptions about women’s labor and gender relations.In a compelling analysis of Mexican women in the maquiladora industry, Wright (1997) examines the importance of gender identity in the work performed by these women.Representation of the Mexican “Woman” as a docile, submissive, and tradition-bound worker stems from the dominant Western discourse of third-world women.This discourse is challenged by feminists throughout the developing world who document how women engage in strategies of resistance and struggle to empower themselves economically (Beneria and Feldman 1992; Cravey 1997; Tinker 1990).A more detailed analysis of gender and development is presented in the fifth section of this chapter.Overall, this trend has helped redefine categories and explore alternative methodologies to research the social and spatial construction of gender and work in different cultural and geographical contexts. 

The fourth trend examines the gendering of work through a focus on identity, culture, and representation.Feminist discussions about economic processes shifted in the early 1990s from materialist notions of production and consumption in the capitalist economy to social and cultural dimensions of workplace dynamics and the role of gender in the organization of firms (Hanson and Pratt 1995; McDowell 1997; McDowell and Court 1994).Increased attention to these aspects of economic activities coincided with the expansion of the service-based economy and growing attention to cultural practices of work (Halford and Savage 1997). 

What has been labeled the “cultural turn” in human geography has influenced feminist economic geography considerably through increased attention to the ways in which masculinity and femininity are constructed in the workplace.Case studies and intensive fieldwork are used to analyze how the embodied nature of work influences the social construction of gender divisions of labor, employment experiences, and contemporary trends in industrialized and developing economies.For example, Massey’s (1995, 1997) research on social dimensions of the high-technology workplace describes the construction of masculine space that embodies the elite concept of reason.She argues that Western economies and their places of“science” are socially constructed in ways that separate mental reason on the one hand and the materialities of the world on the other (Massey 1997).This recent shift in analyses of gender and work has contributed to the cultural turn in human geography that focuses on the embedded and embodied nature of economic processes in cultural contexts and institutions.Gender is an integral aspect of this cultural order of the economy and part of the process of restructuring in ways that are unique to feminist geography. 

In conclusion, beginning with its roots in empiricist research on women and work, feminist perspectives on economic geography offer recommendations for emancipatory, inclusive analyses of the social and spatial dimensions of economic processes.These analyses are grounded in the claim that women, people of color, and other disempowered members of society remain marginalized in the workforce due to socially constructed norms and dominant power relations.Multiple theoretical and methodological approaches are used to identify and explore the positions and institutional context of these power relations.Additionally, comparative research and exploration of parallel experiences of workers (especially women) in diverse cultural and political economic contexts is necessary.Globalization is breaking down boundaries and requiring more sophisticated knowledge of economic processes at multiple scales.Finally, contemporary feminist analyses of economic processes reveal how culture is embedded in and constitutive of gender and work.Perhaps these analyses will contribute to the emancipation of workers and the formation of institutions that are sensitive to multiple social differences among workers and the diverse forms of production that are part of economic strategies.

Geographic Perspectives on Gender and Development

Background to Gender and Development

During the early 1980s, as the neoliberal paradigm and the IMF reasserted their influence as a result of the world debt crisis, development institutions shifted their attention to women's productive and reproductive roles for their potential contribution to and subsidization of economic growth. Examples of this type of development included aid for women's agricultural schemes and support for small-scale enterprise, micro-credit, and village banking schemes (Kabeer 1994; Moser 1993).Consequently, a strong and vocal group of both northern and southern academic and activist critics had emerged to protest the implications of neoliberal policy controlled by Western development and financial institutions. Some of these critics argued that WID efforts resulted in increasing wealth and power of the elites or that gender bias in some development programs affected women and children negatively (Apshar and Dennis 1992; Beneria and Feldman 1992; Gladwin 1992; Shiva 1989; Sparr 1994). Other critics argued that gender bias would actually hinder sustainable development (Elson 1995b; Jacobson 1992).

Part of the critique of mainstream development and WID concerned the need to decenter Eurocentric perspectives and conceptualize alternative analytical tools for development that would integrate marginalized peoples.These critics argued for the incorporation of perspectives from third-world women who were being directly affected by hegemonic development policies, and initiated the concept of empowerment in which voice, power, and development were integrally linked.Post-colonial or alternative development perspectives were initiated by a group of feminists in the South, when DAWN (Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era) published its manual Development, Crises, and Alternative Visions (Sen and Grown 1987).

Some of this literature conceptualized social relations of gender in which household or personal power relations were seen as institutional locations of analysis that lowered barriers to development.This concept would serve as the basis for a radical reorientation from women toward gender relations as an analytical tool and reflect the emergence of institutions as an analytical framework within development theory.This shift signaled a theoretical reorientation away from mainstream and WID development theory to a more progressive notion of gender and development that incorporated not only gender, but also alternative perspectives, methodologies, and epistemologies. (See Kabeer (1994) and Momsen (1991) for more detailed overviews.)

Contemporary Gender and Development

The first approach, environmental sustainability, spawned a sizable body of work on women and the environment (see Dankelman and Davidson 1988; Shiva 1989). This work has been generally categorized under the term Gender, Environment, and Development (GED) and includes general feminist overviews and critiques of environment and development (Braidotti et al. 1994; Harcourt 1994; Scott 1995; van den Hombergh 1993).Seagar'sEarth Follies (1993) is an important geographic contribution to this approach.

One aspect of this literature is ecofeminism that links the nature and causes of patriarchy and environmental destruction (Mies and Shiva 1995; Merchant 1980; Plumwood 1993; Warren, 1994).According to ecofeminists, these two forms of oppression have similar origins.Women are also seen as integral to the solution of environmental deterioration.In contrast, materialist environmental feminism critiques essentialist relations between women and nature and analyzes the political economy, institutional, and material aspects of gender in relation to the environment (Agarwal 1992, 1994; Jackson 1993, 1995; Nanda 1997).

Geographers have also been instrumental in the development of feminist political ecology that addresses gendered environmental relations. This perspective extends the analyses of cultural and political ecology by incorporating both the large-scale political economic forces of power and distribution and the household scale to better understand environmental degradation (Rocheleau et al. 1996; Carney 1992, 1993; Leach 1994, 1995; Sachs 1996; Schroeder 1993, 1997).

Economic restructuring and globalization have been a second key influence on GAD during the last decade.This has not only led to a shift in the meaning of development in which it is no longer possible to simply understand it as a linear process from third world to first world; but as a reconfiguration into a network of global systems, spatial relationships, cultures, and identities.Specific responses to globalization have been produced on multiple academic fronts.Feminist economists, for example, critique development policy and its negative impact on local lives while challenging the gender bias of economic development and globalization.The feminist alternative highlights these invisibilities and attempts to correct mistakes of mainstream economics (see Agarwal 1994; Bakker 1994; Blumberg 1991; Elson 1995a, b; Folbre 1993, 1994; Sparr 1994).Geographers such as Gibson-Graham (1996), Hart (1991, 1992), Cravey (1998), and Radcliffe and Westwood (1993, 1996) use a political economic framework to address the gendered nature of globalization and development.

Furthermore, feminist political scientists have elaborated a critique of the linkages between geopolitical/international relations and restructuring/development.This perspective examines the influence of hegemonic political forces on the integration of the global economy and development.According to Enloe (1990) and Peterson and Runyon (1993), this process is highly gendered.Scholars have also begun to highlight women's social movements and post-colonial resistance that are responding to global processes (Afshar 1996; Waylen 1996).

Third, feminist post-structural and post-colonial epistemologies have extended these feminist political and economic analyses of globalization and development by challenging the Western, colonial, and modernist presumptions underlying the origins, nature, and production of knowledge. Building on the earlier work of DAWN, new theoretical perspectives from third-world feminists and women of color in the West (Antrobus 1996; Mohantyet al. 1991) as well as post-structural perspectives (Marchand and Parpart 1995) have questioned mainstream and Western feminist epistemologies. 

The feminist critique of science emerged during the mid-1980s as a strong epistemological alternative to modernist thinking (Haraway 1989, 1991; Harding 1992,1998; Hartsock 1983; Keller 1985), and has served as a foundation for the valorization of traditional and situated knowledge and methodological alternatives. Feminist geographers have been active in this arena, beginning with several edited collections that are part of the groundbreaking series International Studies of Women and Place, edited by Momsen and Monk. (See Momsen and Kinnaird 1993; Radcliffe and Westwood 1993; Townsend 1995; and Fenster 1999). 

The Future of Gender and Development

Gender and Cultural Geography

A second way in which traditional cultural geographers and adherents to “new” cultural geography differ is based upon different ways of viewing the landscape.Material landscape studies are one of the principle foci in cultural geography (Craig 1998; Duncan and Ley 1993).These studies are seen by others as implying that there is a neutral way of viewing a landscape.Many feminist geographers who study landscapes would disagree with this implication, saying that what is presented as “neutral” is often one form of a white, middle-class, male gaze (Monk 1992; Rose 1994).As Rose (1993: 87) points out, “more recent work on landscape has begun to questions the visuality of traditional cultural geography, however, as part of a wider critique of the latter's neglect of the power relations within which landscapes are embedded.”

Traditional cultural geography also differs from other cultural geographies in its use of dualisms or dichotomies to describe cultural spaces or behavior.Traditional cultural geographers sometimes view the natural landscape as “maternal” and consider nature and culture as a dualism (Rose 1993).But by using gender as a social and/or spatial construct, feminist geographers have embarked on several different but related courses.Some, for example, will look at femininity or masculinity as cultural identities that are place-specific and entail different spatial behaviors.

In the 1990s, questions of politics and representation, as well as questions of dualism were addressed by feminist geographers writing about culture.Some researchers tried tospatialize the dualism already mentioned between what was seen as a masculine disembodied reason and feminine embodiment and emotion (Bondi 1992).Duncan's (1996) BodySpace, for example, highlights new directions in research on the role of space and place in the performance of gender and sexuality.Other studies that critically examine politics and representation as well as dualisms surrounding culture and nature are Duncan and Ley (1993), Anderson and Gale (1992), Monk (1992), and Bondi and Domosh (1998).Monk (1992: 122 discusses the 'invisible ideologies and social conditioning that support distinct gender roles, the power inequalities between men and women; and the differing meanings that men and women attach to their surroundings.'Finally, the dualisms that define cutural aspects of gender roles are often examined in urban arenas. (For exceptions see Monk and Norwood 1987; Rose 1993; and Valentine 1997.)Bondi (1992), for example, discusses gender symbols in contemporary urban landscapes, while Peake (1993) discusses the ways in which the relations of race, class, gender and sexuality are played out across urban social space. 

Geographers writing about gender and culture tend to do so in a way that emphasizes the interwoven nature of gender, class, space, and place and draws from historical and contemporary case studies.Bondi and Domosh (1998) discuss the doctrine of separate spheres for men and women in both a spatial and ideological context, with particular attention paid to the changing contours of the relationship between gender divisions and distinctions between public and private spaces.In this sophisticated essay, the authors examine one of the classic themes and problems of feminist literature, the conflicts between women's use of public and private space. 

As the new century unfolds, geographers are debating the way in which, or even in some cases if, the subject of gender and culture should be analyzed.Although geographers with an interest in gender are increasingly addressing cultural topics, much of this research is not always recognized, much less endorsed, by all adherents of cultural geography.The following section examines how feminist geography has advanced our understanding of contemporary cultural geography through its incorporation of gender, identity, and representation in social spaces. 

Gender, Identity, and Space

Identity in Context 

This critique of essentialist and unified notions of gender and space also contributes to analyses of the links between identity and methodology.As outlined above, feminist methodology attempts to break down separations between the identities of the researcher and the researched in order to convey the ways in which they are intertwined (often in very specific power relations) and to illustrate the ways in which methods and theories shape the means by which knowledge, spaces, and identities are constructed (Domosh 1989; Nast 1994; Dyck 1995).In sum, feminist geographers have built on critiques of class, gender, and patriarchy by breaking down the categories of women/men by race, gender, class, sexuality, and nationality.These critiques highlight the constantly shifting nature of these identities across categories and at different moments in different places (Bondi 1993; England 1994; Pratt and Hanson 1994).

Difference and Deconstruction

A considerable amount of debate in feminist geography has also focused on the dangers of a depoliticized postmodern geography that fails fully to analyze the situated knowledges of various marginalized groups, e.g. poor women, people with disabilities, children, gays and lesbians, and women of color (Deutsche 1991; Massey 1991; Pile and Rose 1992; Gibson-Graham 1994). Feminist geographers are increasingly asking questions about what we mean by difference, how we represent fluid identities, and what options are there for feminist politics.The move towards a fuller understanding of identity and space has reflected an effort to shift away from representations of the two as static and separate, and toward an exploration of the ways in which identities and spaces are discursively (re)created.At the same time, within feminist geography there have been concerns about encouraging effective (and nuanced) feminist praxis while broadening the impact of feminist theories within the discipline. Barbara Morehouse suggests, “Thinking from the perspective of the dilemmas of postmodernism, I see a major point of contention being how to resolve the tensions between the tendency to pursue an exclusivist focus in feminist geography versus a need to place feminist geography within larger contexts, as one of many perspectives and forms of experience, without losing the power of feminist critiques.” 

More recently, feminist geographers have increasingly shifted their focus towards post-structuralist modes of inquiry (Natter and Jones 1993; Jones and Moss 1995; Lawson 1995; Mouffe 1992; Pile and Thrift 1995).Post-structuralist research has involved a thorough analysis of the use of language and the way in which discourse becomes a key means to communicate and recreate identities and space. Representation, therefore, becomes the mediator and medium through which identities and spaces are (re)produced.In addition, feminist post-structuralists emphasize the impossibility of a unified subject, a “fixed” means of knowing, or the separation of the material and representational. Post-structuralist research does have some commonality with postmodernism in that both use deconstruction as one of their keys modes of analysis, i.e. they critique truth claims embedded within a narrative to unearth inconsistencies and contradictions that are not always explicitly represented.This work has drawn extensively from research outside the discipline, particularly in the area of cultural studies, the FrankfurtSchool, and social theory more generally.Post-structuralism has had considerable influence within geography in the study of identity politics, spatiality, power, and representation ( Jackson 1991; Bondi 1992; Knopp 1992;Natter and Jones 1997; Nast 1998).This approach has also impacted studies that critically examine histories of geographic thought (Domosh 1991; Pratt 1992; Rose 1993), symbolic spaces (Martin and Kryst 1998), art/media (Norwood and Monk 1987; Zonn and Aitken 1994; Monk 1997), and geographies of resistance and activism (Meono-Picado 1997; Moss 1997; Pile and Keith 1997).

Nationalism, Identity, and Transnationalism

This literature also examines the uneven power relations between women in different social positions by drawing on a range of cultural and social theory (including post-structuralism) that analyze multiple subjectivities and sites of gendered identities (e.g. Mohanty 1988; McDowell 1991; Katz 1992; hooks 1991).A key body of work within this area has addressed the gendered nature of national identities and transnational links within gender and geography (Nash 1994; Nagar 1997) that includes a reevaluation of the discipline’s imperial past, e.g. through an examination of travel writing and historiography.Feminist historical geography has played an important role in interrogating the ways in which gendered geographies have been reformulated in various contexts.In this literature, increased attention is given to the various social and physical “borders” that are created and reproduced to maintain specific gendered and racialized identities through immigration, nationalism, the impacts of colonialism, and human rights (Blunt 1994; Blunt and Rose 1994; Fenster 1998; Mains 2000; Morin and Guelke 1998).Overall, post-colonialism has provided insight to the means by which Western subjectivities have been constructed, the uneven power relations within and beyond the academy, and the ways in which gender, ethnicity, and nationalism have been reproduced through a variety of sociospatial relations.

Sexuality, Identity, and Spaces of the Body

Critical analyses of masculinity and representation are increasingly included in analyses of gay and lesbian identities in urban and rural spaces (Berg 1994; Knopp 1995; Rothenberg 1995), and heterosexuality and psychoanalysis (Blum 1998; Lukinbeal and Aitken 1998; Nast 1998). Drawing on the work of Foucault and queer studies, feminist geographers have explored the relationships between sexuality and space to reveal a vast array of multiple identities and negotiations of identity and geography.For example, while exploring the ways in which discussions of capitalism and market forces have been reproduced, Gibson-Graham (1996) highlight the gendered nature of these discourses, and the usefulness of queer theories for breaking down existing hegemonic forms of analysis. Drawing on the work of Eve Sedgwick, Gibson-Graham argues that the tools for undertaking a rethinking of capitalism and economic development are already present in analyses of sexual morphology.“For queer theorists, sexual identity is not automatically derived from certain organs or practices or genders butis instead a space of transivity” which offer opportunities to subvert “monolithic representations of capitalism” (Gibson-Graham 1996: 140). Therefore, although often regarded as private, feminist geographers have shown the ways in which sexuality is frequently monitored (and disciplined) in very public relations and spaces.Nast and Pile (1998: 3) comment, “The body is both mobile and channeled, both fluid and fixed, into places,” and as such, they illustrate the uniqueness and commonalities in the way we experience and reproduce space through a negotiation of bodies and places.

The Body and Medical Geography

One of the most important topics that medical geographers have been concerned with is the spatial diffusion and socioeconomic characteristics of people infected with the HIV virus and AIDS.Most of the work by medical geographers has been concerned with mapping disease transmission and patterns (see Gould 1991; Shannon and Pyle 1989). While this is important to know for public health policy, feminist medical geographers have gone a step further to analyze the social production and interpretation of women’s health and illness with regard to HIV/AIDS.Kearns (1996) states that geographers are in a good position to analyze the social repercussions of the epidemic because of their willingness to integrate social theory concepts such as the structure/agency debate and to engage with public health policy. Brown (1995), for example, discusses the geographies of exclusion when examining AIDS discourse and shows the importance of structures and individual agency in his case study.Kearns (1996) acknowledges the challenge for medical geographers to integrate global, national, and state-level analysis of virus distribution with the local specificity of individual life experience. This challenge has been increasingly addressed by feminist geographers who utilize qualitative methods to understand the effects of the AIDS epidemic on women (Wilton 1996), women’s vulnerability (Craddock 2000), and the variation of gendered experience internationally (Asthana 1996).Many of the geographers who have taken up issues of individual experience of HIV and HIV prevention programs for women have conducted research in Africa. Asia, and Australia. Perhaps the most notable in this field are Asthana’s (1996) work with commercial sex workers in India. 

While feminist research in medical geography lags behind contributions made by feminist medical anthropologists, sociologists, and cultural studies scholars, a growing number of geographers are concerned with issues of representation, the female body, and health care policy.For example, New Geographies of Women’s Health, edited by Dycket al. (2001) brings together feminist scholars to problematize the intersections of race, ethnicity, class, and gender as they pertain to women’s health. This is the first volume devoted entirely to feminist medical geography.It includes such topics as globalization and women’s health, health-care access, the embodiment of health and illness, perceptions, and the role of place.In addition, medical geographers are integrating traditional geographic research methods with qualitative methods to create a more comprehensive understanding of disease and health (Barron McBride 1993; Dyck and Kearns 1995).Drawing from this integrative approach, Davis Lewis and Kieffer (1994) call for the expansion of research to include not only women’s reproductive health but also the quality of life throughout the entire life cycle in a context that addresses physical, mental, social, and economic health. 

Challenges for the Future: (Re)Presenting Gender and Space

Feminist Pedagogy and Teaching in Geography

Feminist pedagogy and teaching occupies a significant proportion of our professional lives, yet until recently it has not been a major area of research in gender geography.The majority of work that has been done on this topic addresses the inclusion of gender, sexuality, and feminism in geography curricula (Knopp 1999; McDowell 1997; Monk 1985), gender and student learning in the classroom (Nairn 1995; 1997), and the use of feminist methodology for student projects (Madge 1994; Raghuram et al.1998).Additionally, research on geography curricula has taken the form of multidisciplinary projects such as the National Council for Geographic Education’s Finding a Way project funded by National Science Foundation.This extensive project educates secondary education teachers about gender and multicultural issues in the geography curriculum (Monk 1997; Sanders (forthcoming).While research such as this has been useful in advancing geographic education, especially for women and minorities, a comprehensive and critical analysis of feminist pedagogy in geography is long overdue.Consequently, many feminist geographers draw from the growing literature on pedagogy in women’s studies to inform their teaching methods and approach.

Two topics will be explored in this section.The first topic is a critical analysis of the institutional frameworks in which we practice feminist pedagogy and teaching.These institutions include the discipline of geography, the academic setting of universities or colleges, and geography curricula.The discussion examines the status of women, feminism and gender studies in each of these institutions.The second topic addresses ways in which feminism is applied in the classroom.The analysis focuses on implementing inclusive, participatory approaches in feminist teaching within these different institutional contexts.The discussion includes a critical evaluation of feminist pedagogy and provides suggestions for future research.

Institutional barriers to and opportunities for feminist pedagogy

Figure 1. The Status of Women in Geography 

Four measures depicting the status of women include their membership in the AAG, level of education, employment in universities, and their status as students.Overall, women comprise a relatively small, but increasing proportion of geographers in all these categories.The proportion of AAG members who are women has increased significantly from 15.4% in 1974 to nearly 28.9% in 1997 (AAG 1998).The percentage of female geographers who are employed in universities, however, has increased slowly, from 24.4% in 1981 to 31.7% in 1997 compared to 49% of male geographers. This is partly due to the fact that a greater proportion of females in this organization are students or work in private industry.In fact, the percentage of female students is not only increasing at a faster rate than that of female faculty, it is also growing faster than that of male students (AAG 1998).

In general, the presence of female faculty members is important to mentor students in the discipline, in addition to promoting curriculum changes and introducing more inclusive approaches to teaching.The need to improve the status of women as a means of promoting feminist issues in the discipline and academic institutions was found among several of the survey respondents.Jennifer Hyndman noted the difference between the department where she obtained her degree and her current department where she is a faculty member.She states, “I work in an interdisciplinary department where well over 50% of the faculty are women and 30% are people of colour.It is an unusual but dynamic and comfortable mix.”In contrast, the climate in departments with no women or only a few is more likely to be uncomfortable or alienating for women, as well as for gays and lesbians and minorities.

Focusing on women, however, overlooks the potential contributions of men who encourage females to apply for grants, mentor them, or provide other means of support for their active participation in the discipline.For example, one respondent who wished to remain anonymous attributed her early interest in women in development to two male professors in her department during a time when there were few women.She credits these professors with being open-minded enough to consider a feminist pursuit when this was not at all common.

Finally, although women may be hired as faculty, as has been the case in many top departments in the country, attitudes towards women, feminism and diversity are sometimes slow to change.The survey question about how departments or universities have changed as a result of increasing awareness of gender issues in the discipline drew this cautious response from the graduate student Deborah Martin:

There have certainly been changes in how fellowships and teaching assistantships are awarded, in recognition of the influence of the 'boy’s network' on past decisions and attempts to reduce gender bias.I think that there are still plenty of personal biases against certain types of gender and post-structuralist research, but the institutionalized bias against it is much reduced.

Thus, while the numbers reflect a growing presence of women, feminist approaches in teaching and research face continued resistance among certain faculty and students.

Curriculum is another important area where feminist approaches have changed the content of and material used in courses in both secondary and higher education.The Finding A Way project mentioned above introduces teaching material to secondary geography teachers that incorporates strategies to stimulate young women of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds to study geography and improve their academic performance (Monk 1997).In higher education, gender in geography is not considered a central part of the curriculum and depends very much on faculty and students in the programs.Despite the ad-hoc incorporation of gender into the curriculum, several major geography departments offer courses in feminist geography at the undergraduate if not graduate level.These courses have evolved from general overviews of gender geography to critical analyses of specific topics within the subfield.For example, courses are more frequently offered with titles such as Women in the Global Factory, Environmental Feminism, and Gender and Human Rights.

Additionally, more texts are being written for use in feminist geography courses.One series that was mentioned by several survey respondents as contributing significantly to the subfield is Routledge's International Studies of Women and Place, edited by Janet Momsen and Janice Monk.Other books that are useful in gender geography courses are Thresholds in Feminist Geography by Jones et al. (1997) and Feminist Geographies by the Women and Geography Study Group (1997).The next decade will certainly see the options for teaching materials expand, particularly on the Internet where a wide variety of gender and feminist resources is available and will be increasingly incorporated into courses.2

The presence of a single or a few courses in gender geography, however, only partially fulfills the objective of feminist teaching and pedagogy.The goal is to incorporate gender in nearly every course since it is an integral part of political, urban, economic, and other subfields of geography.Again, this goal faces resistance by some members of the discipline.As Deborah Martin commented, 'there is recognition that gender issues need to be incorporated into our curriculum, although the completeness of that enterprise is yet to be seen(not everyone has taken gender perspectives on board in their classroom; some view it as the domain and responsibility of a few profs in a few classes).”

Expanding pedagogical discussions to include sexuality and queer studies as well as gender has only recently gained attention in academic arenas.For example, The Journal of Geography in Higher Education's recently published the papers from a symposium on the implications of using queer theory in the geography classroom and other forms of professional practice (Knopp 1999).The authors analyze how dominant cultural values enter the classroom in both positive and negative ways as social relations and institutions are examined from critical, anti-heterosexist perspectives (Elder 1999; England 1999).Additionally, students are sometimes resistant to the inclusion of gender and sexuality in courses that are not perceived as relevant to feminist analyses.For example, a faculty member who responded to the survey commented that absence among males was considerably higher than usual when she covered the topic of gender in her political geography course.In sum, although the chilly climate is improving for feminists in the institutional frameworks of the discipline, colleges, universities, and geography curricula, there is continued resistance to gender and feminist approaches in the academy. 

Practicing Feminism Inside and Outside the Classroom

I am very committed to student-centered learning and encouraging all students to speak in my class.I try very much to be a facilitator rather than the all-knowing professor.This requires lots of advanced organizing and planning, and also requires a great deal of “tongue biting” on my part during some classes!My teaching evaluations usually indicate that the students really like this approach and appreciate the opportunity to shape their own learning.I use inclusive language and wherever possible use examples that draw on difference and diversity. 

I try to build self-awareness, or “consciousness raising” into my classroom, as an active-learning pedagogy that’s informed by feminism.I don’t want students to think that whatever they think is valid regardless of evidence, but I want their experiences to be legitimated in the classroom and to be part of critical thinking and analysis. (Deborah Martin, survey response).

These quotes underscore the ethical and political concerns that permeate feminist teaching, research, and other professional activities.Specifically, they represent a particular approach to feminist pedagogy and teaching that is sensitive to hierarchical power relations and supportive of students' direct involvement in the learning process (McDowell 1994; Monk 1996).

An important aspect of feminist pedagogy is the mentoring that occurs outside the classroom and the expectation that feminist teachers are accessible to students.Although the rewards are great, there are also personal sacrifices involved in this type of commitment. Pamela Moss expressed concern over the personal toll that being a feminist in geography is taking on women in the discipline as they continue to battle for acceptance and recognition.Another respondent stated 

As I have increasingly become aware of, and struggled to resist, the masculinist practices within the discipline itself, I’ve found myself in a series of ethical dilemmas.I’ve found that being a feminist in geography is often a contradictory experience.For me, it was quite a surprising realization, because I had previously thought the construction industry, which I worked in for many years, was far more sexist than academia could ever be. (AlthaCravey, survey response).

In addition to the dominance of masculinist practices in academia that can be alienating, feminists are experiencing the negative impacts of the academy taking on a more 'pragmatic', business approach to education and research.

In conclusion, this section addresses the institutional aspects of our teaching and pedagogy that include the status of women in geography, the academic institutions where we teach and do research, and curriculum in feminist geography.While some research has looked at gender issues in education and curriculum, feminist pedagogy remains a relatively understudied area of research in feminist geography.The strategies we have developed in our teaching, however, have been informed by our research and broader feminist beliefs in addressing issues that challenge barriers to women's empowerment inside and outside academia. 

Future Directions for Feminist Geographies 

As can be seen in previous sections, feminist geography has expanded tremendously during the last decade.In addition to its separate identity as a geographical subfield, its presence has grown to varying degrees within traditional specialty areas of geography such as economic, cultural, historical, urban, and development geographies, among others. Feminist geography has been central to the initiation and expansion of a range of new approaches and topics such as post-colonial theory, identity/representation/space, feminist political ecology, and geographies of the body.Furthermore, it has played a central role in redefining what it means “to do” geographical research, both methodologically and analytically. 

Yet, each of these categories highlights gaps and opportunities for future research and the realization of feminist goals. For example, within traditional cultural geography, and despite extensive feminist work in the “new” cultural geography, there is still a need for work that will allow feminist theory to be fully recognized, valued, and incorporated into that area. Within economic geography, continued feminist analysis and activism can perhaps contribute to the formation of emancipatory institutions within the arena of work.Within development and globalization, new global spatial forms present an enormous opportunity for geographers to influence the directions of the production of knowledge and constructions of political action, both within geography and within the cross- and multidisciplinary setting. 

Within other traditional specialty areas, broader opportunities exist for feminist analysis, for example, within political geography and rural studies. Within GIS, which is one of the fastest-growing areas in geography, concern for social issues has emerged within the last decade, but without much attention by feminist geographers.Another underrepresented arena for feminist geographers is the domain of physical geography. Although there has been little cross-fertilization between human and physical geography, an important entry point for this project exists within cultural and political ecologies, which address environment/society relations, and especially within various feminist environmentalisms, including feminist political ecology. 

Within feminist geography, several concerns and issues remain open for attention and debate. First, feminist geographers have illustrated the need to rethink gendered geographies as meaning more than women’s places, which is reflected in a gradually growing amount of research addressing spaces of masculinity, as well as an increasing emphasis on multiple, intersecting vectors of identity within feminist theory of difference.This reorientation introduces the crucial question of the prioritization of gender within the feminist frame of analysis. Another key issue that has surfaced along with the growing array of theoretical perspectives in feminist geography has been the challenge of providing a “common ground” or nodal points from which constructive dialog among feminist geographers can continue. In general, both within specialty areas and across geography, there is a need for more comparative research, on an intradisciplinary level, cross-culturally, and across multiple spatial scales. A final crucial debate within feminist geography addresses the ghettoization of feminist geography. Should it maintain a separate presence, both conceptually and within its own specialty group; or should it ultimately permeate all subfields, curriculums and courses? 

Within the professional arena, we have highlighted the importance of the academic institution as a venue for accomplishing broader feminist objectives, and have seen that important progress has been made in that arena. Yet, important work still remains to be accomplished around the status of women, feminism, and diversity within the institutional framework. This includes expanding the number of positions available to women and feminists;and expanding gender and feminist approaches in courses and curricula, texts and teaching materials, and pedagogy. 

Looking beyond the discipline, several issues address the relationship between feminist geography, other academic disciplines, and other research collaborators. As evidenced by several respondents to the survey, feminist geography had not realized its potential to inform feminist studies and other fields outside the discipline, instead of vice versa.Continued extradisciplinary influence can be accomplished through judicious choice of publication venues, and feminist geographers should continue to be open to multidisciplinary collaboration. Feminist geography is diversifying methods of study and redefining boundaries between different subjects.The conceptual frameworks and methodological approaches involved in this type of critical research are complex and multiple, and offer fruitful prototypes for collaboration. 

Extending beyond the academic arena, important issues raised in feminist geography, especially in methodology, pedagogy, and the broad area of gender, identity, and space, offer potential insights into ways that feminist geography can influence praxis and the political arena. These ideas include the interconnection of academic and activist identities, using feminist identities and spaces to retheorize hegemonic geographies, and interrogating geographies of both the left and the right in ways that challenge the reproduction of these categories. 

Nonetheless, it is important to consider the delicate questions of how these opportunities and investigations should be negotiated with our colleagues around the world. The growing diversity of voices and attention to a broad range of identities within gender/feminist geography intersect with important questions about developments of technology and power relations which will allow people on the margins to speak for themselves.This phenomenon raises serious questions about the long-term role of feminist geographers as the primary interpreters or channels of knowledge.Some would argue that the role of western academics should disappear in this arena as native researchers and activists step to the fore and claim their rightful power.Alternatively, this begs the question of how this process will be integrated into the existing context, and how we as feminist researchers and activists can facilitate an expansion of knowledge and power.Our choice of research questions, our methodological techniques, and the relationships between academics, pedagogy, and activism all play an important role in how we answer these questions. 

The final decade of the millennium seems an appropriate time for feminist geographers to challenge dominant concepts of economic restructuring, cultural landscapes, gender and development, identity and space, and other important geographical concerns.Although feminist geography is not without its issues, as one survey respondent commented, ‘I’m reluctant to make forecasts of the future. However, I will say that as long as feminist geographers continue to address issues that make real differences in women’s lives, and are willing to work towards empowerment of marginalized women inside and outside of academia, the future of feminist geography will be bright.’ 

Reference 

Afshar, H. (ed.). (1996).Women and Politics in the Third World. London: Routledge.

________ and C. Dennis (eds.). (1992).Women and Adjustment Policies in the Third World. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Agarwal, B. (1992).‘The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons From India‘. Feminist Studies, 18/1: 119-158.

________(1994).A Field of One's Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Alexander, M. J., and Mohanty, C. T. (eds.) (1997). Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures. New York : Routledge.

Anderson, K. and Gale, F. (1992). Inventing Places: Studies in Cultural Geography. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Antrobus, P. (1996).‘Bringing Grassroots Women's Needs to the International Arena’.Development, 3: 64-67.

Association of American Geographers(1998). Guide to Programs in Geography in the United States and Canada.Washington, D.C.: AAG.

Asthana, S. 1996. ‘The Relevance of Place in HIV Transmission and Prevention: Geographical Perspectives on the Commercial Sex Industry in Madras’, in R. A. Kearns and W. M.Gesler (eds.), Putting Health into Place: Landscape, Identity and Well-Being. Syracuse, NY: SyracuseUniversity Press.

Bakker,I. (ed.). (1994). The Strategic Silence: Gender and Economic Policy.London: Zed Books.

Barron McBride, A. (1993). ‘From Gynecology to Gyn-Ecology: Developing a Practice Research Agenda for Women’s Health’. Health Care for Women International 14(4): 315-26.

Bell, D. and Valentine, G. (eds.) (1995). Mapping Desire. New York: Routledge.

Beneria, L., and Feldman, S. (eds.) (1992). Unequal Burden:Economic Crises, Persistent Poverty, and Women's Work. Boulder, Westview Press.

Berg, L. D. (1994). ‘Masculinity, Place and a Binary Discourse of 'Theory' and 'Empirical Investigation' in the Human Geography of Aotearoa/New Zealand." Gender, Place and Culture, 1 2: 245-60.

Bhabha, H. (1986).’Remembering Fanon: Self, Psyche and the Colonial Condition’. Foreword to F. Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks. London: Pluto Press, pp vii-xxvi.

Blum, V. (1998). ‘Ladies and Gentlemen: Train Rides and Other Oedipal Stories’, in Nast and Pile (1998: 263-80).

Blum, V., and Nast, H. (1996). ‘Where’s the Difference? The Heterosexualization of Alterityin Henri Lefebvre and Jacques Lacan’. Society and Space 14: 559-580.

Blumberg, R. L. (1991).'Income Under Female vs. Male Control: Hypotheses from a Theory of Gender Stratification and Data from the Third World', in R. L. Blumberg, (ed.), Gender, Family and Economy; The Triple Overlap.Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications.

Blunt, A. (1994). "Mapping Authorship and Authority: Reading Mary Kingsley’s Landscape Descriptions", in Blunt and Rose (1994: 51-72).

Blunt, A., and Rose, G. (eds.) (1994). Writing Women and Space: Colonial and Postcolonial Geographies. New York: Guilford Press.

Bondi, L.(1992) 'Gender Symbols and Urban Landscapes." Progress in Human Geography 16/2: 157-169. 

______1993). "Locating Identity Politics". In M. Keith and S. Pile (eds.), Place and the Politics of Identity. New York: Routledge, 84-101.

Bondi, L., and Domosh, M. (1992)'Other Figures in Other Places: On Feminism, Postmodernism and Geography."Environment and Planning A. Society and Space, 10: 199-213. 

______1998). 'On the Contours of Public Space: A Tale of Three Women'. Antipode, 30/3: 270- 289.

Boserup, E. (1970). Women's Role in Economic Development. New York, NY:St. Martin's Press.

Bowlby, S., J. Lewis, and L. McDowell (1989). “The Geography of Gender”, in R. Peet and N. Thrift (eds.), New Models in Geography.London: Unwin and Hyman, iv.157-175.

Braidotti, Rosi, et al. (1994). Women, the Environment and Sustainable Development. London:Zed Books.

Brown, M. (1995). “Ironies of Distance: An Ongoing Critique of the Geographies of AIDS.” Environment and Planning D:Society and Space 13: 159-83.

Butler, J. P. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York : Routledge.

Carney, J. (1992).“Peasant Women and Economic Transformation in The Gambia”. Development and Change, 23/2: 67-90.

______(1993).“Converting the Wetlands, Engendering the Environment: The Intersection of Gender with Agrarian Change in The Gambia”.Economic Geography, 69/ 4: 329-347.

Craddock, S. (2000). “ Disease, Social Identity, and Risk: Rethinking the Geography of AIDS.” Transactions from the Institute of British Geographers, 25:153-68.

Craig, M. (1998). Cultural Geography. London: Routledge.

Cravey, A. (1997). 'The Politics of Reproduction:Households in the Mexican Industrial Transition”. Economic Geography, 732: 166-86.

________(1998) Women and Work in Mexico's Maquiladoras. Lanham, MD.Rowman & Littlefield.

Dankelman, I., and Davidson, J. (1988). Women and Environment in the Third World. London: Earthscan.

Davis Lewis, N. and Kieffer, E. (1994). “The Health of Women: Beyond Maternal and Child Health”, in D. R. Phillips and Y. Verhasselt, (eds.), Health and Development. London: Routledge, 122-37.

Del Casino, V. J. Jr. (2001). “ Healthier Geographies: Mediating the Gaps between the Needs of People Living with HIV and AIDS and health Care in Chiang Mai, Thailand.” The Professional Geographers, 53/3:407-21.

Deutsche, R. (1991). “BoysTown”. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 9: 5-30.

Domosh, M. (1989). “The New YorkWorldBuilding: A Method for Interpreting Landscape”. Area, 21: 347-55.

____ (1991). “Towards a Feminist Historiography of Geography ”. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 16: 95-104.

Dorn, M. (1998). “Beyond Nomadism: The Travel Narratives of a Cripple”, in Nast and Pile (1998:183-206).

Duncan, N. (eds.) (1996). Bodyspace: Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality. London: Routledge.

Duncan, J. S. and Ley, D. (1993) Culture/Place/Representation. Routledge: London. 

Dyck, I. (1993) “Ethnography: A Feminist Method?”The Canadian Geographer, 37/1: 52-57.

____ (1995). “Putting Chronic Illness ‘In Place’: Women Immigrants’ Accounts of their Health Care”.Geoforum26: 247-260.

Dyck, I., Dais Lewis, N., and McLafferty, S. (2001). Geographies of Women’s health. New York: Routledge.

Dyck, I., and Kearns, R. (1995). “Transforming the Relations of Research: Towards Culturally Safe Geographies of Health and Healing”. Health and Place 1: 137-47.

Elder, G. (1995). “Of Moffies, Kaffirs and Perverts: Male Homosexuality and the Discourse of Moral Order in the ApartheidState,” in Bell and Valentine (1995: 56-65).

______(1999). “Queerying’ Boundariesin the Geography Classroom..” Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 23/1: 86-93.

Elson, D. (ed.)(1995a).Male Bias in the Development Process.Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press.

________(1995b).“Gender Awareness in Modeling Structural Adjustment.”World Development, 23/11: 1851-1868.

England, K. (1994). “Getting Personal: Reflexivity, Positionality, and Feminist Research.” The Professional Geographer, 46/1:80-89. 

_______ (1999). “Sexing Geography, Teaching Sexualities.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 23/1:94-101.

Enloe, C.(1990).Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Faulkner, A. and V. Lawson (1991). “Employment versus Empowerment: A Case Study of the Nature of Women's Work in Ecuador.” The Journal of Development Studies 27/4: 16-47

Fenster, T. (1998). “Ethnicity, Citizenship, Planning and Gender: The Case of Ethiopian Immigrant Women in Israel.” Gender, Place and Culture 5/2: 177-190.

________(ed.) (1999) Gender, Planning and Human Rights.London: Routledge. 

Folbre, N. (1993).“How Does She Know? Feminist Theories of Gender Bias in Economics.”History of Political Economy, 25:1: 167-184.

_______(1994).Who Pays for the Kids?: Gender and the Structures ofConstraint. London: Routledge.

Foord, J. and Gregson, N. (1986). “Patriarchy: Towards a Reconceptualisation.” Antipode 18(2): 186-211.

Gibson-Graham, J.K. (1994).“Stuffed If I Know’: Reflections on Post-Modern Feminist Social Research.”Gender, Place and Culture, 2/1:205-224. 

________(1996). The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy.Cambridge: Blackwell. 

Gilbert, M. (1994). ‘The Politics of Location: Doing Feminist Research at ‘Home’. “ The Professional Geographer, 46/1:90-6. 

________ (1998). ‘Race, Space and Power: The Survival Strategies of Working Poor Women.”Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88/4:595-621.

Gladwin, C. (ed.).(1991). Structural Adjustment and African Women Farmers. Gainseville, Fla.: University of Florida Press.

Gould, P. (1991). 'Modelling the Geographic Spread of AIDS for Educational Intervention,' in R. Ulack and W. F. Skinner (eds.), AIDS and the Social Sciences. Lexington, KY.University of Kentucky Press, 30-44.

Gruntfest, E. (1989) “Geographic Perspectives on Women.”' in G. Gaile and CortWillmott (eds.?) Geography in America. Columbus, OH: Merrei, 673-83.

Halford, S. and Savage, M. (1997). “Rethinking Restructuring: Embodiment, Agency and Identity in Organizational Change.” in R. Lee and J. Wills (eds.), Geographies of Economies. London, Arnold, 108-117.

Hall, S. (1990). “Cultural Identity and Diaspora.” in J. Rutherford (ed.), Identity: Community, Culture, Difference.London: Lawrence & Wishart, 222-37.

Hanson, S. (1997) “Introduction to Part 2: As the World Turns: New Horizons in Feminist Geographic Methodologies.” inJones, Nast, and Roberts (1997:119-28).

Hanson, S., and Pratt, G. (1995). Gender, Work, and Space. London, Routledge.

Haraway, D.(1989). Primate Visions: Gender, Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York, NY: Routledge.

______.1991. Simians, Cyborgs and Women. The Re-invenntion of Nature. London: Free Association Books.

Harcourt, W. (ed.). 1994. Feminist Perspectives on Sustainable Development. London:Zed Books.

Harding, S. 1992. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

_______(1998). Is Science Multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. Bloomington : IndianaUniversity Press.

Hart, G. (1991).“Engendering Everyday Resistance: Gender, Patronage, and Production Politics in Rural Malaysia.”Journal of Peasant Studies, 19/1: 93.

_______.(1992).“Household Production Reconsidered: Gender, Labor Conflict, and Technological Change in Malaysia's Muda Region.”World Development, 20/6: 809-823.

Hartsock, Nancy. (1983).“The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Grounds for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism.”in Money, Sex and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Hayford, A. (1974). “The Geography of Women: An Historical Introduction.” Antipode 6: 1-18.

Hays-Mitchell, M. (1993). “The Ties that Bind: Informal and Formal Sector Linkages in Streetvending: The Case of Peru's Ambulantes.”Environment and Planning A. 25: 1085-1102.

hooks, b. (1991). Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. Boston: South End Press, 23-31.

Jacobson, J. (1992). Gender Bias: Roadblock to Sustainable Development.Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute.

Jackson, C. (1993).“Environmentalisms and Gender Interests in the Third World.”Development and Change, 24: 6449-677.

_______.(1995).“Radical Environmental Myths: A Gender Perspective.”New Left Review. 210: 124.

Jackson, P. (1991). “The Cultural Politics of Masculinity: Towards a Social Geography.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. N.S. 16: 199-213.

Johnston, J. (1996). “Flexing Femininity’: Female Body-Builders Refiguring “The Body.” Gender, Place and Culture 3 3 : 327-340.

Johnston, R. J., Gregory, D., and Smith, D.M (eds.) (1994). The Dictionary of Human Geography.Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.

Jones, J. P., Nast, H. J., and Roberts, S. M. (eds.) (1997).Thresholds in Feminist Geography: Difference, Methodology, and Representation. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Kabeer, N. (1994). Reversed Realities.London:Verso.

Kandiyoti, D. (1991). “Identity and Its Discontents: Women and the Nation.” Millenium: Journal of International Studies 20/3: 429-43. 

Katz, C. (1992). “All the World is Staged: Intellectuals and the Projects of Ethnography.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 10: 495-510.

Katz, C. and J. Monk (eds.) (1993).Full Circles: Geographies of Women over the Life Course. London: Routledge.

Kay, J. (1991). “Landscapes of Women and Men: Rethinking the Regional Historical Geography of the United States and Canada.” Journal of Historical Geography, 17/4: 435-452

Kearns, R.A. 1996. “AIDS and Medical Geography: Embracing the Other?”

Progress in Human Geography 20/1: 123-131.

Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CN: YaleUniversity Press.

Knopp, L. (1992). ‘Sexuality and the Spatial Dynamics of Capitalism.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 10: 651-669.

______(1995). “Sexuality and Urban Space: A Framework for Analysis.” in Bell and Valentine (1995: 149-61).

______ (1999) "Queer Theory, Queer Pedagogy: New Spaces and New Challenges in Teaching Geography". Journal of Geography in Higher Education 23/1: 77-79. 

Kobayashi, A. and Peake, L. (1994). “Unnatural Discourse: ‘Race’ and Gender in Geography.” Gender Place and Culture 2: 225-44.

Laws, G. (1995).“Theorizing Ageism: Lessons from Postmodernism and Feminism.”The Gerontologist, 35/1: 112-18.

_______(1997). ‘Womens’ Life Courses, Spatial Mobility and State Policies.” in Jones ed al. Thresholds in Feminist Geography: Difference, Methodology, Representation. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 47-64.

Lawson, V. (1995a). “Beyond the Firm: Restructuring Gender Divisions of Labor in Quito’s Garment Industry under Austerity.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13: 415-44. 

______(1995b). “The Politics of Difference: Examining the Quantitative/Qualitative Dualism in Post-Structuralist Feminist Research.” The Professional Geographer47: 449-57.

Leach, M. (1994).Rainforest Relations: Gender and Resource Use Among the Mende of Gola, Sierra Leone. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

________ et al. (1995). “Editorial: Gender Relations and Environmental Change.”IDS Bulletin. 26/1: 1-8.

Lee, D. and Schultz, R. (1982). “Regional Patterns of Female Status in the United States.” The Professional Geographer, 34: 32-41.

Longhurst, R. 1994. “The Geography Closest In-the Body the Politics of Pregnability.”Australian Geographical Studies, 32(2): 214-223.

Lukinbeal, C. and Aitken, S. C. 1998. ‘Sex, Violence and the Weather: Male Hysteria, Scale and the Fractal Geographies of Patriarchy.” in Nast and Pile (1998: 356-80).

McDowell, L. (1986). “Beyond Patriarchy: A Class-Based Explanation of Women’s Subordination.” Antipode, 18/3: 311-21.

_______(1991). “The Baby and the Bath Water: Diversity, Deconstruction and Feminist Theory in Geography.” Geoforum 22: 123-33.

_______ (1992). “Doing Gender: Feminism, feminists and research methods in human geography.”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 17/4: 399-416. 

________(1994). “Polyphony and Pedagogic Authority.” Area, 26/3: 241-48.

________(1997). Capital Culture: Gender at Work in the City. Oxford, Blackwell.

McDowell, L., and G. Court (1994). “Missing Subjects: Gender, Power and Sexuality in Merchant Banking.” Economic Geography, 70: 229-51. 

Mackenzie, S. (1989). “Women in the City.” in R. Peet and N. Thrift(eds.), New Models in Geography. Boston: Unwin Hyman, p.ii. 

Mackenzie, S., and Rose, D. (1983). “Industrial Change, the Domestic Economy and Home Life.” in J. Anderson, S. Duncan and R. Hudson (eds.), Redundant Spaces in Cities and Regions? Studies in Industrial Decline and Social Change. London: Academic Press, 155-199.

McLafferty, S. L. (1995).“Counting for Women.”The Professional Geographer47/4: 436-42.

Mclafferty, S.L., and Tempalski, B. (1995). “Restructuring and Women’s Reproductive Health: Implications for Low Birthweight in New York City.” Geoforum 26/3: 309-23.

Madge, C. (1994). "Gendering Space: A First Year Geography Field Work Exercise." Geography 79/345: 330-8.

Mians, S. (2000). “An Anatomy of Race and Immigration Politics In California.”International Journal of Social and Cultural Geography, 1/ 2 : 143-54

Mains, S. (2002). “Maintaining National Identity at the Border: Scale, Masculinity, and the Policing of Immigration in southern California,” in A. Herod and M. W. Wright (eds.), The Geographies of Power: Placing Scale. NY: Blackwell.

Marchand, M. H., and Parpart, J. L. (eds.) (1995). Feminism/Postmodernism/Development.London: Routledge. 

Martin, A. and Kryst, S. (1997). “Encountering Mary: Ritualization and Place Contagion in Postmodernity.” inNast and Pile (eds.). Places Through the Body.New York: Routledge, 207-29.

Massey, D. (1984). Spatial Divisions of Labor.New York, Methuen.

_______(1991). “Flexible Sexism.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,9: 31-57

_______(1994). Space, Place, and Gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

_______(1995). “Masculinity, Dualisms and High Technology.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 20: 487-99.

_______(1997). “Economic/Non-Economic'.” in R. Lee and J. Wills (eds.), Geographies of Economies.London: Arnold, 27-36. 

Mattingly, D. J. and Falconer Al-Hindi, K. (1995). ‘Should Women Count? A Context for the Debate’.The Professional Geographer, 47/4:427-37. 

Mazey, M. E. and Lee, D.R. (1983). Her Space, Her Place: A Geography of Women. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.

Meono-Picado, P. (1997). “Redefining the Barricades: Latina Lesbian Politics and the Creation of an Oppositional Public Sphere.” in Jones, Nast, and Roberts (1997: 319-38).

Merchant, C. (1980). The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution.NY: Harper & Row.

Mies, M. and Shiva, V. (1993). Ecofeminism. Halifax: Fernwood Publications.

Mikesell, M. (1993). “Afterward: New Interests, Unsolved Problems, and Persisting Tasks.” in K. Foote, P. Hugill, K. Mathewson, and J. M. Smith (eds.), Rereading Cultural Geography. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Mills, S. (1996). “Gender and Colonial Space”. Gender, Place and Culture 3/2: 125-48.

Mohanty, C. T. (1988). “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.” Feminist Review 30: 65-88. 

Mohanty, C. T., Russo, A. and Torres, L. (eds.)(1991). Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism. Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press.

Momsen, J. H. (1991). Women and Development in the Third World. London:Routledge.

Momsen, J H., and Kinnaird, V. (eds.) (1993). Different Places, Different Voices: Gender and Development in Africa, Asia and Latin America. London: Routledge.

Monk, J. (1985). "Feminist Transformation: How Can It be Accomplished?" Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 9/1: 101-5.

_____ (1992). “Gender in the Landscape: Expressions of Power and Meaning.” in Anderson andGale (eds.), Inventing Places, Studies in Cultural Geography. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 123-38.

______(1996). “Partial Truths: Feminist Perspectives in Ends and Means,” in M. Williams (ed.), Understanding Geographical and Environmental Education.London: Cassell Education, 274-86 

________ (1997a). “Introduction to Part 3: Marginal Notes on Representations.” in Jones,Nast, and Roberts, (eds.), Thresholds in Feminist Geography: Difference, Methodology, Representation. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 241-254.

________(1997b). “Finding a Way.” New Zealand Journal of Geography, 7:7-11.

Monk, J., and Hanson, S. (1982). “ On not excluding Half of the Human in Human Geography.”The Professional Geographer, 34 / 1: 11-23 

Monk, J., and Norwood, V. (eds.) 1987. The Desert is No Lady: Southwestern Landscapes in Women’s Writings and Art. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

Monk, J., Betteridge, A. and Newgall, A. (1991). “Introduction: Reaching for Global Feminism in theCurriculum.” Women's Studies International Forum, 14/4: 239-249.

Morin K. (1995). “A ‘Female Columbus’ in 1887 America: Marking NewSocialTerritory.”Gender, Place and Culture, 2: 191-208.

Morin, K., and Guelke, J. K. (1998). “Strategies of Representation, Relationship, and Resistance: British Women Travelers and Mormon Plural Wives, ca. 1870-1890.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88/3: 436-62.

Moser, C.O. N.(1993). Gender Planning and Development. London: Routledge.

Moss, P. (1997). “ Place of Resistance, Spaces of Respite: Franchise Housekeepers Keeping house in the Workplace and at Home.” Gender Place and Culture, 4/2: 179-96.

Mouffe, C. (1992). “Feminism, Citizenship, and Radical Democratic Politics.” in J. Butler and J. Scott (eds.)Feminists Theorize the Political, New York: Routledge, 369-84.

Myslik, L. (1996). “Renegotiating the Social/Sexual Identities of Places: Gay Communities as Safe Havens of Resistance.” in N. Duncan (ed.), BodySpace: Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality. New York: Routledge, 156-169.

Nairn, K. (1997) “Hearing from Quiet Students: The Politics of Silence and of Voice in Geography Classrooms,” in Jones, Nast, and Roberts (1997: 93-115). 

Nagar, R. (1997). ‘Exploring Methodological Borderlands through Oral Narratives’, in Jones, Nast, and Roberts (1997: 203-24).

______(1998). “Communal Discourses, Marriage, and the Politics of Gendered Social Boundaries among South Asians Immigrants in Tanzania.” Gender, Place and Culture, 5/2: 117-39. 

Nanda, M. (1997).“History is What Hurts: A Materialist Feminist Perspective on the Green Revolution and Its Ecofeminist Critics.” in R. Hennessy and C. Ingraham (eds.), Materialist Feminism: A Reader in Class, Difference, and Women's Lives. London. Routledge.

Nash, C. (1994). “Remapping the Body/Land: New Cartographies of Identity, Gender, and Landscape in Ireland.” in Blunt and Rose (1994: 227-50).

Nast, H. (1994). “Opening Remarks on “In the Field.”The Professional Geographer, 46/1:54-66. 

_____ (1998). “Unsexy Geographies.”Gender, Place and Culture, 5.2:191-206.

Nast, H., and Pile, S. (1998).Places Through the Body. New York, Routledge.

Natter, W. and Jones, J. P. (1993). “ignposts Towards a Poststructuralist Geography.” In J. P. Jones, W. Natter, and T. Schatzki (eds.) Postmodern Contentions: Epochs, Politics, Space. New York: Guilford, 165-203.

___ (1997). “Identities, Space and Other Uncertainties.” in G. Benko and U. Strohmayer (eds.), Space and Social Theory. Cambridge: Blackwell, 141-61.

Oberhauser, A. M. (1995). “Gender and Household Economic Strategies in Rural Appalachia.” Gender, Place and Culture, 2/1: 51-70.

______(1997). “The Home as ‘Field’:Households and Homework in Rural Appalachia.” in Jones, Nast, and Roberts (1997: 165-82).

Peake, L. (1993). “Race’ and Sexuality: Challenging the Patriarchied Structuring of Urban Social Space.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 11: 415-32.

Peterson, V. S. and Runyon, A. S.(1993). Global Gender Issues. Boulder: Westview Press.

Pile, S. and Rose, G. (1992). ‘All or Nothing? Politics and Critique in the Modernism-Postmodernism Debate.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 10: 123-36. 

Pile, S. and Thrift, N., Eds., (1995). Mapping the Subject: Geographies of Cultural Transformation. London: Routledge.

Plumwood, V. 1992.Feminism and Ecofeminism: Beyond the Dualistic Assumption of Women, Men and Nature’.The Ecologist, 2/1.

Pratt, G. (1992). Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. London: Routledge.

Pratt, G., and Hanson, S. (1994). “Geography and the Construction of Difference.” Gender, Place and Culture 1/1: 5-30.

Professional Geographer (1994).“Women in the Field: Critical Feminist Methodologies and Theoretical Perspectives.”46/1: 54-102.

_____(1995). “Should Women Count? The Role of Quantitative Methodology in Feminist Geographic Research.”47/4: 426-66. 

Pulido, L. (1997). “Community, Place and Identity'.” in Jones, Nast, and Roberts (1997: 11-28).

Radcliffe, S. andWestwood, S. (1993). ‘Viva’ Women and Popular Protest in Latin America. Routledge: London.

_______(1996).Remaking the Nation: Place, Identity and Politics in Latin America.London: Routledge.

Raghuram, P., Madge, C., and Skelton, T. (1998). “Feminist Research Methodologies and Student Projects in Geography.”Journal of Geography in Higher Education 22/1:35-48.

Rocheleau, D. (1995). “Maps, Numbers, Text, and Context: Mixing Methods in Feminist Political Ecology.”The Professional Geographer, 47/4: 458-466.

Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, B. and Wangari, E. (eds.).(1996).Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences.London: New York.

Rose, G. (1993). Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge. Cambridge: Polity Press.

______(1994). 'The Cultural Politics of Place: Local Representation and Oppositional Discourse in Two Films'. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 19: 46-60.

Rothenberg, T. (1995). “And She Told Two Friends’: Lesbians Creating Urban Space.” in Bell andValentine (1995: 165-81).

Sachs, C. (1996)Gendered Fields: Rural Women, Agriculture, and Environment.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Said, E. (1978). Orientalism.London: Routledge.

Sanders, R. (forthcoming).“Introducing ‘White Privilege’ into the Classroom: Lessons from Finding A Way.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education.

Schroeder, R.(1993).“Shady Practice: Gender and the Political Ecology of Resource Stabilization in Gambian Garden/Orchards.”Economic Geography. 69/4: 349-65.

______(1997). “Re-claiming' Land in The Gambia: Gendered Property Rights and Environmental Intervention.”Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 87: 3, 487-503.

Scott, C. V.(1995).Gender and Development. Boulder: Lynne Reinner.

Seagar, J. (1993). Earth Follies: Coming to Feminist Terms with the Global Environmental Crisis. New York, NY: Routledge.

Sen, G. and Grown, C. (1987). Development, Crises, and Alternative Visions. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Shannon, G. W., and Pyle, G. F. (1989). “The Origin and Diffusion of AIDS: A View from Medical Geography.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 79: 1-24.

Shiva, V. (1989).Staying Alive. London: Zed Books.

Sparr, P. (ed.).(1994). Mortgaging Women's Lives: Feminist Critiques of Structural Adjustment. London:Zed Books.

Spivak, G. C. (1988). “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” in C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.

Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London:Verso.

Staeheli, L. and Lawson, V. (1995). “Feminism, Praxis, and Human Geography.” Geographical Analysis, 27/4: 321-338.

Tinker,I., Ed. (1990). Persistent Inequalities:Women and World Development. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Townsend, J. in collaboration with U. Arrevillage, J. Bain, S. Cancina, S. F. Frenk, S. and E. Perez (1995). Women’s Voices from the Rainforest. London: Routledge. 

Valentine, G. (1993). “'Heterosexing Space: Lesbian Perceptions and Experiences of Everyday Spaces.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 11: 395-413. 

______(1997). “Making Space: Separatism and Difference.” in Jones, Nast, and Roberts (1997: 65-76).

van den Hombergh, H. (1993)Gender, Environment and Development: A Guide to the Literature.Utrecht: International Books.

Warren, K. J. (ed.). (1994). Ecological Feminism.London: Routledge.

Waylen, G. (1996).Analyzing Women in the Politics of the Third World, in Afshar (1996).

Wilton, R.D. 1996. “Diminished Worlds? The Geography of Everyday Life with HIV/AIDS and the Geography of Everyday Life.” Journal of Health and Place, 2/2:1-17

Women and Geography Study Group of the Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers. (1997). Feminist Geographies: Explorations in Diversity and Difference.Harlow: Longman. 

Wright, M. (1997). “Crossing the Factory Frontier: Gender, Place, and Power in the Mexican Maquiladora.” Antipode, 29/3: 278-302. 

Zonn, L. and Aitken, S. Eds. (1994). Place, Power, Situation, and Spectacle: A Geography of Film. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Figure – 1

 

Theoretical approaches

Methodological concerns

Selected research topics

 

Women in geography	“Counting” women  The geography of women Feminist empiricism	Mapping spatial patterns ofwomen’s activities and status Challenging positivist research	Women in the city Women and employment Women and development
Socialist feminism	Socialist Feminism Marxism  Gender and Development	Historical materialism Combining theory and praxis	Relationships between patriarchy and capitalism Spatial and social structures of home and workplace Gender roles in the third world
Third world feminism/ politics of difference	PoststructuralismPostcolonialism Race theory	Discourse analysis Participatory research Life histories Politics of fieldwork	Challenge essentialist and Eurocentric forms of knowledge  Gender planning and development Differences across the life course
Feminism and ‘new’ cultural geography	Queer theory Postmodernism Psychoanalytical theory Cultural representation	Positionality and reflexivity Textual analysis Narratives Ethnography	Situated knowledge Sexuality and space The body and identity politics Imaginary and symbolic spaces

Source: Johnston, et al. 1994; Jones, Nast, and Roberts 1997; WGSG 1997