Читать книгу Rural Women in Leadership - Lori Ann McVay - Страница 26

Choice of methodology provides no certain guarantee that the knowledge produced is directly connected to the reality being studied (Scheurich, 1995). Feminism is no exception to this quandary, which is compounded by the presence of myriad viewpoints on what does or does not constitute appropriate feminist method (Flax, 1987). Fortunately, this situation is not hopelessly irreconcilable, as the potential still exists for feminism to negotiate commonalities in the interactions between epistemology and politics in research (Walby, 2001). The basis for negotiation lies in feminist researchers’ shared goal of gaining ‘an understanding of women’s lives and those of other oppressed groups… that promotes social justice and social change… and … is mindful of the researcher-researched relationship and the power and authority imbued in the researcher’s role …’, including how the researched are represented in the final write-up of research findings (Hesse-Biber, 2007, emphasis in the original), and the tangled process of how the researcher’s subjectivities influence the knowledge she/he produces (Pini, 2004b).

Further challenges to feminist methods may be divided into two key areas, the first of which is the tension between dominant empirical approaches to research and research inclusive of women’s experiences (Lather, 2001). Although theories of power are myriad among feminists, surrounding the shared goal of gaining understanding is the principle that knowledge produced by feminist research should in some way be connected to women’s actual experiences of power within relationships – including those between the researcher and the researched (Naples, 2000). If we accept a definition of experience that embraces the multiplicity of activities involved in women’s everyday lives (Brooks, 2007), it is understandable that experience as a valid source of knowledge has been criticized for a disconnection from theory, for lack of generalizability, and for the simple reason that the human senses are not infallible (Ramazanoglu and Holland, 2002). Nevertheless, feminist knowledge produced using experience as its basis has resonated strongly with many people, suggesting that the examining of experience within a rigorous sociological framework has the potential to produce findings that are both accessible and academic (Smart, 2009).

Secondly, incorporation of the poststructural concept of intersectionality (‘the relationships among multiple dimensions and modalities of social relations and subject formations’) presents quite a challenge to feminist researchers (McCall, 2005, p. 1771). This is particularly the case when varied ways of thinking (for example Eastern and Western) meet (Ramazanoglu and Holland, 2002). Feminist scholars have come to recognize that multiple positions on any given issue must be recognized – even when they are in disagreement with feminist thought (Pini, 2004b). However, this has also led to the assertion that discourse alone cannot capture the effects of experience on women’s actual, physical realities, and therefore experience must be interpreted in some manner, rather than being merely investigated (Smart, 2009). This point brings us to the specific methods used in this study.