An introduction to feminist research methods

The three texts we're using this semester in feminist research methods are:

• Feminist Methodologies for Critical Researchers: Bridging Differences (Joey Sprague, 2005)
• Feminist Research Practice: A Primer (Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber & Patricia Lina Leavy, 2007)
• Feminist Methods in Social Research (Shulamit Reinharz, 1992)

Thus far, we've been assigned the introductions for each text, and I think they each provide interesting perspectives and will be great resources in the future. In addition to these texts, we'll have some great guest speakers as well as other articles to read.

From what I've read thus far, I really like the Shulamit Reinharz text...and the Feminist Research Practice seems to be a very accessible read. Here are the summaries of what I've read thus far:

Joey Sprague text, Ch 1, "The Field of Vision"

It seems to me that the overall goal of this book is to teach feminist methods in order to make society more just (a major tenant of feminist methods). One problem Joey Sprague sees is that the word methodology can convey either boredom or intimidation -- neither of which are good starting points doing research to make the world a better place. The text is focused specifically on feminist research methods due to: the feminist history of critiquing prevailing assumptions, experimenting with alternatives, and that gender is an important social organizer and we need to take action (not just understand the way society works).

There is a discussion of "how we do research" and discusses Sandra Harding's three elements of research: epistemology, method, and methodology. "A methodology works out the implications of a specific epistemology for how to implement a method" (p. 5).

The remainder of the discussion in this chapter is about the researcher and their means for expressing their observations...and how both can be problems in the world of social research and what feminists are doing/can do to remedy this. Some of these problems include: basic research as more valued than applied research, a hierarchy of research topics, a tendency to "study down," and "ask questions that make inequality seem either natural or the responsibility of those on the downside of social hierarchies" (p. 12), reliance on logical dichotomy (employing dualisms the make observations seem mutually exclusive), abstract individuation (discussing the individual out of their context), objectification, using abstractions and jargon, hiding the researcher, as well as publishing norms and standards. The chapter closes by giving an overview of "what is to come" as well as discussing the importance that researchers are mindful of 1) how knowledge is produced and 2) how methods are used (technically and politically).

Abigail Brooks & Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber, Ch 1, "An Invitation to Feminist Research"

I won't go into great detail about this chapter as much of it is familiar to me, but the overall impression I got from this chapter was that there are many takes on feminism and many takes on feminist research methods.

• People's perceptions of feminism are informed by their lives - white, middle class women may not understand the importance of feminism
• Assumptions are made about feminists and feminism, and thus, women's issues prevail (i.e., salary, underrepresentation in certain fields, affordable childcare, poverty, and violence)
• The feminist critique of positivism
• Sandra Harding's "strong objectivity" (using marginalized voices to be the starting point for knowledge and develop stronger standards)
• Discussing feminist empiricists, feminist alternatives to positivism, and differences in feminist theory and practic
• Sandra Harding's "strong reflexivity" (the interaction of the observer with the observed can be positive and can help one gain stronger objectivity)

Shulamit Reinharz, Ch 1, "Introduction"

This book is a very thick book and Shulamit Reinharz seems to have put much effort into gathering multiple perspectives. Dr. C-L was right, though it was published in 1992, it has much to offer. She gives us different visions of feminists, different ideas about methods, and some feminist history. The most fascinating things I found in this chapter were: 1) her discussion of men and the idea of the male feminist/male feminist researcher and 2) the examples she picks for her book are from those who self-identify as "feminist."

Can a man be a feminist? Can a man contribute to feminist methodology? I think there will always be disagreement about this, but I think there is a difference between a man who claims to be a feminist and a man who claims to write accurately about women. This makes me think about disability studies. People without disabilities do research in the field of disability studies. Granted, one would hope that the voices of people with disabilities is expressed - by both researchers with disabilities and not - but people with disabilities can do research to help the field of disability studies. --I just think they can't claim to know what it means to actually be a person with a disability, the same as a man cannot understand what it means to be a woman.

Regarding the choice to pick feminist research to include in the text based on the researcher's identification as a feminist is an interesting decision. True, it may be more accurate than her own labeling of feminists based on her own opinion, but what about those that may be presenting great feminist research but do not want to identify as such (due to stigma)? It also probably would have been difficult (and perhaps anti-feminist) to try to construct a scale of what feminist research is based on what feminists say -- I mean...I don't even know if that's possible.

***********************************

I am looking forward to class this week...the following week is epistemologies...I hope I'll survive!