Feminist Queer Methodologies Workshop Dr Risn RyanFlood University

Feminist & Queer Methodologies Workshop Dr. Róisín Ryan-Flood University of Essex

Presentation overview Research ethics Feminist epistemology A comparative study of lesbian parenthood Rethinking secrecy and silence in the research process 2

Feminist epistemology Emphasis on voice and representation in feminist research The ‘unspoken’ dimensions of ‘speaking for others’ (Alcoff, 1995) The researcher is ‘always, everywhere in “the field”’ (Katz, 1994: 72) ‘Your silence will not protect you’ (Lorde, 1984) 3

Research ethics Take a moment to write down some key ethical principles in social research 4

What are research ethics? Informed consent: ‘As far as possible participation in sociological research should be based on the freely given informed consent of those studied. This implies a responsibility on the sociologist to explain in appropriate detail, and in terms meaningful to participants, what the research is about, who is undertaking and financing it, why it is being undertaken, and how it is to be disseminated and used. ’ (BSA ethical guidelines) Respecting anonymity ‘Do no harm’ Recognising power and difference in the research process 5

The Tearoom Trade Humphreys’ (1970) study of same sex activities among men in public restrooms gave rise to a wellknown series of debates about covert research, ethics, secrecy and silence. He covertly observed men meeting in these spaces, took note of their car licence plates, and through lying about his intentions, managed to obtain the men’s home addresses from the police. Humphreys subsequently contacted the men and interviewed them for his research. He justified his covert observational methods by writing that they ‘promised the greatest accuracy in terms of faithfulness to people and actions’ (Humphreys, 1970: 21). His analysis was sympathetic to the men he studied and he further defended his methods with the view that the end justified the means. 6

Feminism, methodology and ethics Feminist researchers highlighted questions of power and inequality in the research process Qualitative research was initially posited both as an inherently ‘feminist’ method and as an ideal means of achieving more egalitarian relationships in research. The interactive nature of qualitative methods were considered less objectifying than traditional quantitative methods and allowed women’s voices to be integrated into the research process (Bowles & Duelli-Klein, 1983; Stanley & Wise, 1983). However, these claims have since by challenged by writers who argue that there is no one feminist method and who defend quantitative methods as a useful analytical tool (Kelly et al. , 1992; Oakley, 2000). Stacey (1991) has further suggested that participants are in fact more vulnerable to exploitation in this kind of qualitative research, where social interaction facilitates manipulation on the part of researchers. Furthermore, this approach elicits intensely personal information and understandings of the world that are ultimately simply data for the research project, rather than an egalitarian and mutual exchange. 7

Power relationships in research Mohanty (1991) outlines how feminist researchers can be implicated in processes of domination, by contributing to the marginalisation of research participants. More recently, insider/outsider dilemmas replaced with the rise of reflexivity as a means of situating the researcher within the research process in relation to questions of power and difference. 8

Power relationships in research Questions of power and difference not limited to researchers with ‘outsider’ status Being a member of a subordinated group under study may create particular dilemmas in that ‘insider’ researchers experience unique constraints in how they are held accountable to the community being studied. Zavella (1993) points out that along with the cooperation facilitated by one’s insider status comes the responsibility to produce analyses that are sympathetic to the interests of the participant group and to share whatever knowledge is generated with them. 9

‘Matching’ participants Ann Phoenix (1994) uses her experiences of research, and the impact of ‘racial’ identity, to clarify the difference between realist and constructivist epistemologies. For the constructionist, the very fact that matching or not matching interviewer and participant by ‘race’ produces different results is not an indication that one strategy is inferior to the other as a truth producing formula. The difference is in itself important data. Phoenix also notes that the matching strategy can contribute to the marginalization of black interviewers, who, it is assumed, can research only ‘black’ topics and subjects. 10

Power not unidirectional in research ‘Over a cup of tea, she began talking graphically about her distaste for black people (mainly men) in the area in which I live without ever seeming to become aware that she, a white woman, was talking to me, a black woman. She may, of course, have considered that I was not implicated in her account since most of her venom was directed at black young men. Alternatively, since she clearly liked me, she may have made the more usual ‘exception’ for me. ’ (Phoenix, 1994) 11

Power relations in interview research O’Connell-Davidson and Sanchez-Taylor (2009) experienced harassment and (S-T) racist remarks from participants in research Grenz (2005) describes sexual harassment in the form of inappropriate requests from interview participants and concludes ‘these requests also show that men feel they are allowed to ask for such favours, which again marks their position of power. ’ Lewis (2009) describes feelings of rage towards a racist white participant 12

Gender and power in interview research Grenz (2009) compares interviews with heterosexual male clients of prostitutes carried out by a female researcher and a male researcher. While the research findings were similar, ‘the power dynamics and the ways masculinity were reproduced visibly differ in both studies’ (p. 54). 13

Ethical quandaries ‘Above all, we must do them no harm’ (Clark and Sharf, 2007: 400). But sometimes this is difficult to achieve in practice… Plummer (2001) notes that researchers are often forced to consider the impact what we write about them has on those we study and refers to the process of negotiating ethics in social research as one marked by ambivalence and a ‘struggling with the self’ (2001: 229). 14

Ethics and representation In a discussion of issues of representation and readership, Nast (1994: 60) writes: ‘For a number of reasons, we do not attempt to make all things apparent to all people’. Katz (1994: 71) also suggests that there are potential risks in making ‘the practices of the oppressed visible to those who dominate’. Ribbens and Edwards (1998) argue that some topics of research may allow us to evade the difficult negotiation of ethics and representation more easily than others. In particular, a focus on more ‘public’ social worlds, and established social science topics, may allow researchers to avoid confronting and exploring them. They point out that issues regarding access, interpretation and analysis have been of concern to qualitative researchers across disciplines for many years. It is the particular topics under consideration – aspects of private, domestic and personal lived experience and understandings – that in their view present researchers with difficult quandaries. 15

Ethical dilemmas Moore (2009) discusses her longterm research engagement with a community in Northern Kenya, where she has been a participant observer in rites of passage (kapkore) that include preparation for the practice of female genital cutting: ‘I have never been able to talk openly and accurately about my work on Marakwet, especially with my feminist colleagues, because the moral trauma of circumcision has opened up an almost unbridgeable gap between us. One question I have been asked repeatedly but still find that I cannot answer honestly is “how can you justify observing and participating in these rites since this implies to others that you are condoning them? ” I rather weakly reply that I cannot imagine understanding anything without seeing it, engaging with it. This response sometimes makes me wince, since I recognize that the rather enfeebled and disingenuous ethics that cultural relativism has so often justified in anthropology. In this context, keeping the secrets of kapkore has diminished rather than enhanced my moral standing. ’ (Moore, 2009) 16

Ethical choices Rethinking anonymity: Turton, in a study of gender and child abuse, interviewed perpetrators, victims and clinical practitioners. Interview participants were informed that any disclosures indicating ongoing abuse would be reported (thus compromising anonymity). Turton, J. (2008) Child Abuse, Gender and Society. London: Routledge. 17

Representing who in sexualities research? ‘The Lady Vanishes’ – defining or defying sexual categories/categorisation If sexuality is fluid, who or what is gay/straight/other? Shifts in researcher identity (Rooke, 2009) 18

Reflexivity – where the researcher acknowledges how their own identity/situatedness informs the research encounter Now commonplace in academic writing that addresses questions of power, difference and identity Challenges the myth of the omniscient neutral researcher 19

Critiques of reflexivity Often ‘papers start with what seems to be little more than a ritual incantation of the identities occupied by the author with little or no attempt to reflect on the significance of those positions for the research’ (Gill, 1998: 32). Skeggs (2004) also points out that reflexivity is itself profoundly classed, a product of late modernity that rests on a number of assumptions, including a discourse of rationality that is historically defined in opposition to femininity. 20

Choosing Silence (Ryan-Flood, 2010) Questions of representation and ethics – what to do when you uncover illegal activities for example In a context where lesbian women were legally prohibited from accessing assisted conception, I discovered through interviews a small number of lesbian women posing as heterosexual in order to get IVF in Sweden I did not write openly about this until after the law changed in Sweden allowing lesbian women access to these services, as I did not want to alert authorities that this was happening. 21

Keeping secrets (Ryan-Flood, 2009) A: Then the next time she [doctor] met me, just me and her and then she said I must ask questions about your social status because […] she found out in the papers that I was living with a woman and then I had to say that well I lived with a woman in the past and now I lived with Sven I: And you had to say you were bisexual A: […] yes she said because you know it’s forbidden if it turns out that you’re a lesbian and […] she looked in my eyes and said I want you to be honest now okay and I said yeah […] and I had to look into her eyes and I hated it because I had to lie and I said of course you want the truth and the truth is I’m bisexual, I have had an affair with a woman for many years and then I met Sven, blah. Shit and I felt it was, it was horrible, I hated it. But at the same time I hate, I’m forced into this thing because I can’t do anything else and I need this help to understand what’s happening with my body […] It’s been very hard, and I hate to play this role thing, because I’m always honest - Anita and Ingela, Swedish participants 22

Media Encounters Exposing the lives of minority groups to a hegemonic gaze in a research climate that emphasises the wider dissemination of findings Protecting researchers in terms of their own privacy or the sensationalization of their work 23

Ethical cynicism Does the current concern with research ethics through the process of institutional review boards reflect a genuine concern for participants’ well-being, or does it have more to do with protecting institutions from litigation? Has the feminist concern with participants’ rights been taken up appropriately? Or do ethical regulations assume a hierarchical model of research whereby the researcher is implicitly more powerful? 24

Ethical cynicism ‘In this light, the present trend towards formalistic regulation, in the name of ethics, appears deeply ironic. Informal codes of conduct developed within the research process as part of an egalitarian project are turned into formal injunctions, and welded onto rules based on the medical or psychological model, to form the basis of ethical regulation frequently imposed by research institutions themselves. Arguably such audits and their system of ‘pre-emptive ethical regulation’ are driven more by the aim to obviate any potential cause of litigation against the institution, than by a genuine concern with ethics. Very many classic ethnographic studies would never have seen the light of day under the conditions of pre-research scrutiny now prevalent. ’ (Glucksmann, in Ryan-Flood & Gill, 2010 : 206) 25

Researcher Dilemmas Intimate disclosures - doing research on sensitive topics Public knowledge and private lives - how to present controversial, politically sensitive or intimaterial Recruitment – diversity Definitions of sexuality – how to ‘count’ populations that are difficult to define (sexual identities can be complex!) 26

Contemporary debates Does the current concern with research ethics through the process of institutional review boards reflect a genuine concern for participants’ well-being, or does it have more to do with protecting institutions from litigation? Has the feminist concern with participants’ rights been taken up appropriately? 27

Researcher dilemmas Intimate disclosures - doing research on sensitive topics Public knowledge and private lives how to present controversial, politically sensitive or intimaterial Making sense of participant narratives 28

Conclusions Rethinking secrecy and silence in the research process Ways in which secrecy can be productive Different interpretations of silences 29