In order the better understand feminist research methods in qualitative research, one must first understand the historic roots of feminist theory with a review of the Marxist principle of the mode of production as it relates to the “academic production process” (Stanley, 1990, p. 4).  From the Marxist perspective, the mode of production, in relation to the capitalist economy, consists of interplay between the relations and forces of production: the relation is who controls (or can control) the final product and who cannot; the forces are the objects or tools worked on in the production process.  First, we break the relations of production down to a much simpler question: What is the final product and who may know it…who is the knower?  The answer to this question is quite profound, for if we accept that the final product, or knowledge in the realm of academic production, is produced by a system which historically has been male orientated/dominated, how accessible is this knowledge to women?  Think of this in the realm of dualism, with a simple dichotomy of ‘man – other’ (subject), having access to a new piece of knowledge/scholarship (object).  Where could a woman situate herself in this dichotomy, and more important, what lens would she therefore have to interpret this knowledge through?  Within this dichotomy lies an important element for early feminist researchers, the subject – object power relationship, within a traditionally patriarchal capitalist system, is imbued with gender bias: subject/male perceives object/female.  The forces of production therefore constitute the tools (methods, data, analysis) being utilized to ‘create’ this knowledge, and can then be argued to be extensions of the gender biases of the subject-object relationship.  Stanley refers to the product of this type of production (knowledge) as being “alienated knowledge, a product apparently complete, bearing no apparent trace of the conditions of its production and the social relations that gave rise to this” (p. 11).

Taking this critique forward from its Marxist roots, the purpose of feminist research methods is therefore to present ‘unalienated knowledge’.  Whether or not ‘unalienated knowledge’ is possible, remains a topic for debate, for with the use of any method, knowledge will be presented in some form which has been analyzed/manipulated in some way.

Sandra Harding presents three epistemological perspectives [1] which have developed in feminist research: “1) feminist empiricism, which sees the problem as lying only in bad science; 2) the feminist standpoint approach, which privileges the perspective of women in revealing masculine bias in science; and 3) the postmodern approach, which disputes basic scientific assumptions about objectivity and truth” (http://www.uah.edu/colleges/liberal/womensstudies/harding.htm).  Empiricist and standpoint are termed as ‘successor sciences’ as they both “specify feminist knowledge as better or truer because [they are] derived from ‘outsiders’ who can see the relations of domination and suppression for what they truly and objectively are” (Stanley, 1990, p. 27).  The postmodern approach rejects these universals (Coyner, 1993, p. 117) and sees knowledge as relative to experience (the other which women occupy in the Man-Other dichotomy is fractured), which means that feminist standpoint is expanded to feminist standpoints (i.e. black and lesbian feminism).

So what are feminist research method/s or methodology/ies?  This is something I have personally struggled with, for though I have a better understanding of the differing perspectives of feminist research, the exact methods seem to be quite similar to the established methods in different perspectives.  There do not seem to be any feminist methods per se, but rather feminist approaches to research based on “women as actively constructing, as well as interpreting, their social processes and social relations which constitute their everyday realities” (Stanley, 1990, p. 34).  Another key aspect of feminist research is the need to render the familiar strange, which essentially raises awareness of practices that are normally taken for granted as the norm.  This process empowers the ‘voice’ of women, meaning that they are no longer the ‘object’ of the research but rather they take on the role of co-researchers in a social process in which they are also actors.  One identifiable outcome of this is the increased importance of reflexivity in feminist research, for the researchers are expected and required to analyze the entire process of knowledge production and their role within it, much more so than in other research methods.  This is why the (auto –) biography plays an important role in understanding the realities a particular woman (and thereby perhaps a greater number of women) constructs, however, this (auto –) biography can be constructed out of more than just qualitative interview/narrative data (surveys, photography, etc.).  Accessing these constructed realities is understandably a subjective endeavour, which has resulted in women using feminist research methods to use primarily qualitative methods.

References:

Coyner, S. (1993). Feminist research methods. NWSA Journal: A Publication of the National Women's Studies Association, 5(1), 111-119.

Sandra Harding, Feminist Philosopher of Science. Retrieved 02:15, February 1, 2006 from http://www.uah.edu/colleges/liberal/womensstudies/harding.htm

Stanley, Liz (ed). (1990). Feminist praxis: research, theory and epistemology in feminist sociology. New York: Routledge.

Comments may be directed to Bhuvinder S. Vaid.

Click here to continue on to the Thematic Analysis section