The Who? What? When? Where? Why? of Close Reading
GSWS is a developing field, which means writers in this discipline are engaging in an ongoing conversation. When students read a text, it is important to keep this in mind. What audience is the author of the source material addressing? What are they arguing for and against? What is important to them?
GSWS students should also think about who they are responding to when they write. Maybe they are being asked to analyze an existing conversation about sex and gender, or maybe they are supposed to be participating in the discussion, presenting their own points of agreement and disagreement with the texts at hand.
Whatever the case, close reading of available material is vital to producing good work in this discipline. In order to accomplish this, writers should ask themselves a few questions about each text, including Who? What? When? Where? Why?
Who?
Students should think of the author’s argument in relation to other points made by scholars in the field. Ask: who is the author arguing with? Who are they conceding to? Be careful to distinguish the author’s statements from those of their opposition. Read for phrases like “some say _____” or “as opposed to _____.”
Below, the authors studying gender bias in science classrooms note that others in the discipline have suggested that disparities can be attributed to mere choice. They establish this point of view so that they can present a counterpoint, ultimately staking the claim that gender differences in science come about largely due to faculty bias.
With evidence suggesting that biological sex differences in inherent aptitude for math and science are small or nonexistent (6-8), the efforts of many researchers and academic leaders to identify causes of science gender disparity have focused instead on the life choices that may compete with women’s pursuit of the most demanding positions. Some research suggests that these lifestyle choices (whether free or constrained) likely contribute to the gender imbalance (9-11), but because the majority of these studies are correlational, whether lifestyle factors are solely or primarily responsible remains unclear. Still, some researchers have argued that women’s preference for nonscience disciplines and their tendency to take on… (1)
Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman. “Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 41 (2012): 16474-16479.
What?
If the text has an abstract, students should read it carefully, as it will distill much of the information that follows and make the rest of the reading much easier to understand. Excerpted below is the abstract for the aforementioned study on gender bias in science.
Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants’ preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science. (1)
Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman. “Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 41 (2012): 16474-16479.
Students may also gravitate toward figures and graphs, particularly in quantitative studies, because the results may be difficult to discern in the text itself. In this way, one can often understand a study’s findings at a glance without having to read every word of the text.
When?
Writers should make note of the publication dates of the works they are using in their research. GSWS is a contemporary field, so the date may influence the meaning of the various terms used in the text. For example, the word “transgender” did not appear with its current definition until the 1990s.
Knowing when the text was published will also help writers follow the progression of the conversation. They will understand the way authors are responding to one another and how paradigm shifts come about in this field.
Where?
Where is the writer positioned in society? Writers should be aware of the unique point of view that the author of a text is working with. Aspects of identity such as gender, race, sexual orientation, and ability may influence the author’s experience.
Similarly, these intersecting identities will influence students’ responses to the text. Ask: where do they come from? Where do I come from? Below, in an excerpt from her essay about gender performance, Sheila Koenig acknowledges difference across various axes of oppression.
Maleness is an aspect of transparency in our culture. Women, as other-than-men, are marked by their Otherness, and are thus watched more carefully than men. Race, class, language ‘differences’ (i.e. differences from the “original” white, male, bourgeois, anglo/euroamerican) further mark bodies and spectacularize them. Our bodies are read in various ways, at every moment. (194)
Later on, Koenig acknowledges the limitations of her own experience and the tenuousness of speaking about other marginalized groups—something students should keep in mind as they write their own essays.
The implication of trans-gendered identities (and I hyphenate this word to highlight the many variations of “trans” that all of these gender performances entail) in any discussion of drag become very important; however, it is all-too easy (and all-too-often done) to speak for and about transsexuality without acknowledging, or, even worse, by incorrectly appropriating, the experience of transsexual people. I cannot assume to speak about such experience. I have experienced drag as a performance, yet neither can I assume to speak for drag kings. I think it is safe to assume there will be no unifying theory. (198)
Sheila “Dragon Fly” Koenig, “Walk Like A Man,” in Sex, Gender, and Sexuality: The New Basics. Abby L. Ferber, Kimberly Holcomb, and Tre Wentling, eds. NY: Oxford University Press, 2009.
In addition, when writing about authors in this field, one should make note of what pronouns they use, as their name might not serve as a definitive indication. Some authors may use nonbinary pronouns such as “they/them.”
Why?
When analyzing a text, writers in GSWS should be aware that every work is produced with intention. What was the author’s purpose in writing this article, essay, or book?
Even the most widely respected authors in the field do not represent an objective or universal viewpoint. What does the author want to communicate, and what might they be communicating subliminally? What assumptions, conscious and unconscious, underlie the text?
Below is an excerpt from the introduction of Rebecca Walker’s book To Be Real: Telling the Truth and Changing the Face of Feminism, in which she delves into the contradictions of feminist identity and activism. Here, Walker explicitly tells her readers what she wants them to gain from her text:
My hope is that this book can help us to see how the people in the world who are facing and embracing their contradictions and complexities and creating something new and empowering from them are important voices leading us away from divisiveness and dualism. I hope that in accepting contradiction and ambiguity, in using and much more than we use either/or, these voices can help us continue to shape a political force more concerned with mandating and cultivating freedom than with policing morality. (xl)
Walker, Rebecca. “Being real: An introduction.” To be real: Telling the truth and changing the face of feminism. 1995.
As students read academic texts closely, the most important thing is that they feel empowered to commit to paper their own interpretations of the material. The meanings of many texts are multiple and sometimes even contradictory, and, by embracing this ambiguity, students can innovate with their writing.