This panel explored the role NCRW can play in promoting interdisciplinary feminist research at this historic moment. The field of Women's Studies has expanded dramatically in the last 25 years: we have seen the internationalization of the curriculum; increased diversity of our student bodies; and the proliferation of graduate programs. Feminist scholars have introduced multiple, more inclusive perspectives to expand our notions of gender. Panel members will consider present needs in the U.S. for fora to present and disseminate feminist work, and the role that NCRW can play in meeting these needs. Should NCRW become a catalyst for advancing women's studies research, and if so, how?

Moderator: Demie Kurz (Co-Director, Alice Paul Center for the Study of Women, University of Pennsylvania)

Panelists: Beverly Guy-Sheftall; Sally Kitch (Chair, Women's Studies Department, Ohio State University); Kathy Rudy (Project Director, Women's Studies, Duke University); Elizabeth Weed (Associate Director, Pembroke Center for Teaching and Research on Women, Brown University); Bonnie Zimmerman (President, National Women's Studies Association)

Demie Kurz introduced the session by explaining that the idea arose during the 1997 Annual Conference when participants were asked to define areas of priority for NCRW. Many expressed an interest in having more inter-disciplinary opportunities to present feminist work on themes such as globalization and post-colonialism; the question arose whether NCRW is a potential forum for such presentations, and if so, how this would take place. The discussion among the panelists, and with the audience, centered around the benefits of interdisciplinary scholarship and potential roles for NCRW in this process at this time.

Sally Kitch asserted that the survival of Women's Studies as a field lies in embracing interdisciplinary research, due to the current erosion of commitment to free-standing Women's Studies entities. Beverly Guy-Sheftall echoed Sally's assertion of the importance of interdisciplinary research. She also argued, however, that there is a growing gap in the academy between Women's Studies scholars and an increasing number of women who conduct research on women but don't associate themselves with Women's Studies; they don't necessarily identify as feminist, don't believe that interdisciplinary work is important, and don't see a need for action oriented research. NCRW, she said, could provide a space for these two groups to hash out some of these issues. Beverly also suggested that NCRW could be a place to probe some of the questions raised by the emergence of graduate programs in Women's Studies, and to bridge the divide between Women's Studies scholars and Ethnic Studies scholars, who may now be more open to discussion regarding conducting feminist scholarship within Ethnic Studies.

Kathy Rudy pointed to some of the difficulties with Women's Studies as an interdisciplinary project, particularly with respect to tenure. She said that the National Women's Studies Association (NWSA) exists as a forum for support, but that her scholarship for that audience is not deemed publishable or tenure-worthy. Meanwhile, NCRW is a forum with more intellectual rigor, but is not geared toward sharing work. She suggested that NCRW extend its commitment to the education of girls to the education of women scholars who hope to participate in intellectual life for the long haul. Stanlie James pushed this last point, maintaining that if we are talking about changing institutions, we must make them welcoming to new, creative scholarship in Women's Studies. Additionally, Stanlie proposed that NCRW play a role in helping to change the language so it not only addresses US academic feminists, but can be applied in any context, whether it's church or an international setting, where a feminist perspective can be brought to analyze experience, thereby creating a feminist think tank. Along these lines, Elizabeth Weed addressed the challenge of translating ideas into the discourses of various disciplines in multidisciplinary settings. She suggested that a common language might be common sense.

Bonnie Zimmerman stated that NWSA was designed to be a forum for many of the issues people raised, and that it is a forum that has been underutilized. She sees NCRW's mission as more related to policy, and pointed out that if the concern is developing interdisciplinary Women's Studies, it is crucial that NWSA be involved. That said, she also cautioned against replicating the policy-academic divide, and expressed concern that the historical separation between NCRW and NWSA be remedied.

Several ideas emerged as to ways some of these suggestions could be realized. Sally posited a thematically focused bi-annual conference, co-sponsored with the NWSA, that would bring scholars from different disciplines together with activists and policy makers. Others felt, however, that to undertake another big conference may overstress resources, and suggested lower impact ways of sharing information and solving problems, such as symposia. Kate Cloud mentioned that AWID alternates big conferences with small, policy-related, topical seminars from which working papers are published.

Previous Page

Next Page

Back to the program