emerging_ issues_feminist_research

emerging issues in on-line Feminist research* *

Emerging Issues in On-Line Feminist Research

* *

*Tracy L.M. Kennedy*

*Feminist Methodology Course Paper*

*York University*

*2000*

/Introduction:/

The purpose of this study is to revisit the Internet researchprocess used in an undergrad thesis. Specifically, this paper will seekto explore on-line interviewing as an interactive research process andwhether this interactive system can be utilized as a feminist method. In order to conduct such a study, it will be necessary to revisit thewomen who were previously interviewed on-line. The intention of thispaper is to re-interview the initial women and investigate theirfeelings about being interviewed on-line. This study will not only allowfor a review and critique of subsequent feminist methods, but it willalso contribute to the existing literature regarding tools for feministmethodology.

/Literature review/:

Qualitative research properly seeks answers to questions byexamining various social settings and the individuals who inhabit thesesettings. Qualitative researchers, then, are most interested in howhumans arrange themselves and their settings and how inhabitants ofthese settings make sense of their surroundings through symbols,rituals, social structures, social roles and so forth (Berg, 1998).Qualitative procedures provide a means of accessing unquantifiable factsabout the actual people researchers observe and talk to or peoplerepresented by their personal traces (such as letters, photographs,newspaper accounts, diaries and so on). As a result, qualitativetechniques allow researchers to share in the understanding andperceptions of others and to explore how people structure and givemeaning to their daily lives ( Berg). This paper addresses qualitativeresearch methods used on the Internet. Internet research has grownincreasingly popular with many issues and concerns arising from itsinception.

Cyberspace refers to the Internet and subsequently, this isdifficult to define as reflected when reviewing the literature. TheInternet means many different things to different people. Costigan(1999) explains that the Internet cannot be captured in a singulardefinition. To define the Internet is to restrain it within a structure,a set of boundaries that Costigan (1999) claims do not exist. Not onlyis the Internet in constant state of change, but it is created bynetworks and from these networks new networks are created. This ‘networkof networks’ as Costigan (1999) terms it, each has their own design andunique structure that interconnect (p xviii). Costigan offers an analogyof the Internet as a forest composed of thousands of separate and unique

emerging issues in on-line Feminist researchtrees (p xxiv) which makes Internet research hard to understand, hard todefine and hard to keep up with.

Nevertheless, participant observation, content analysis andon-line interviewing are some of the qualitative techniques that arebeing utilized on the Internet. Pamela Cushing (1996) uses ethnographicevidence to highlight how the conversations of men and women on theInternet are gendered. Cushing’s experiences of a biased language in theInternet world reflected a language that resembled the male-orientedstyle of communication similar to that of the business world. Sheattributes this partially to the fact that there were so few women onthe Internet in its beginnings (in 1996 - 30% women on the net comparedto about 50% now). Cushing uses virtual ethnography as she is observingwithin cyberspace (and in particular Usegroups or Bulletin BoardServices), which some challenge is somewhat different than traditionalparticipant observation.

Cushing’s choice to use ethnographic field strategies isinteresting and effective because we see ethnography as a way ofdescribing a culture - it is a way to understand another ‘way of life’from a native point of view. Ethnography is primarily a process thatattempts to describe and interpret social expressions between people andgroups (Kendall, 1999). In Cushing’s research, she demonstrates that themale linguistic style is privileged to the point that it excludesothers. Within Cyberculture, others (and she argues women in particular)are indirectly forced to adapt to the dominant male conversational normsin order to communicate effectively. She relates this occurrence togender hierarchies evident in the physical world.

Content analysis is another example of qualitative researchthat can be utilized on the Internet. Allison Jones (1999) completes acontent analysis of Internet websites containing racist material. Jonesperceives these websites as a cultural reflection of current racialsentiments both in the US and in Canada. Content analysis is useful inlearning about communication - particularly the message, the sender andthe audience (Berg). As the Internet is a vehicle for communication,Jones is able to learn much about current racist notions, who holdsthese sentiments and who shares these sentiments.

Furthermore, a triangulation of methods is also possible on theInternet. For example, Winter & Huff (1996) examine the electroniccommunication from the standpoint of a women-only electronic forum ofcomputer scientists called ‘systers’. This study utilized a survey of491 women but also conducted a qualitative analysis of the comments fromthe respondents. The survey was electronically distributed to women whoanswered the questions and then offered narratives - some long - someshort - of stories of incidences, reactions and opinion. The authorsnote that many details were provided within the survey when the questiondid not ask for it. It is suggested that the medium - the electronicexchange - worked to encourage women to recount their stories. This maynot have been the case in a mail out or person-to-person survey. This isan interesting example of how Internet research can blur thedistinctions between quantitative and qualitative research methods.

As previous research indicates, Internet research incorporatesand expands how qualitative methodology is conceptualized. While theInternet also offers various quantitative methodological approaches, theInteractive capacity of the Internet allows for an effective qualitativeforum.

Ethical Issues:

emerging issues in on-line Feminist research

/Privacy and Confidentiality/:

Sharf (1999) indicates that electronic mail goes through theInternet, a worldwide computer connected web, that enables linkagesamong people and sites globally. It is necessary to question howprivate the net is? There are several issues that need to be consideredwhen using the Internet for research purposes. Sharf states that aperson can never really be sure who is reading your email and who hasaccess to it. As well, intimate messages sent through email are neverentirely erased and are easily copied and/or redirected (p 246). It isimperative to remember and understood that the Internet is a publicmedium where anyone can access ‘private’ material in a ‘public’ forum.Therefore anyone choosing to make disclosures through an on-linediscussion format is assuming some risk in who will receive thatinformation and how it will be used. Thus, the most important sense ofprivacy for email participants becomes the matter of personalinformation control (Sharf, 1999).

/Informed Consent and Narrative Appropriation/

Frankel & Siang (1999) perceive informed consent as a vitalcomponent of ethics. Informed consent involves the participant in theresearch as a active in the decision making and contributing to theresearch. Frankel & Siang propose three central questions in relation toinformed consent: When is informed consent required; how can it beobtained; and how can it be validated (p 7)? Many of the concerns arerooted in the uncertainty of what is public and what is private space onthe Internet. While chat rooms and Mud/Moos may be public space, theresponsibility is placed upon the participants to not disclose privateinformation in such public forums (p 7).

Sharf also outlines several necessary considerations regardinginformed consent. For example, Sharf states that if a researchercampaigns respondents to participate in an on-line survey or interview,or to contribute personal anecdotes, those who do respond have made aconscious choice to do so (p 247). Sharf implores that participantswho respond have the option to disguise their identities with user namesthat do not reveal actual names or exact locations. Respondents can alsocontrol how much information they wish to volunteer. Sharf declareswhere informed consent becomes troubling; “Presenting greater ethicaldilemma are investigations that focus on the patterns of naturallyoccurring discourse in which those who are being studied cannot chose toexercise the same sorts of controls” ( p248).

Furthermore, an additional ethical concern when conductingInternet research is the interpretation of the words of others. Sharfclaims that this includes the appropriation of someone else’s personalnarratives and quoting out of context are issues to consider incommunication (p248).

Anytime a researcher imposes his or her own framework of analysis on thestories and accounts from other people - whether interviews, participantobservation - questions arise about ownership (for example - whose storyis it now?) And validity (in what ways has the storyhas that story been altered throughthe processes of interpretation and the necessity of choosing selectedsamples to use as supporting evidence and illustrations?) (Sharf, 1999;248).


Finally, a concern particularly for feminist research is whatto do with the research results. Sharf asserts that this potentialexploitation, in regard to how the results of the research will be used,to what purpose, in which context, and to whose benefit or expense canbe detrimental to the participants.

/Literature review: Epistemology and Methodology/

The epistemological and methodological framework for thisresearch project is rooted within feminism. Operationalizing feminism initself is difficult and to further define feminist methodology isequally challenging. A review of the literature indicates that there arevarious epistemological principles which are foundational to feministthought. Cook & Fonow (1990) identify these principles which will bebriefly reviewed in this section. The goal of feminist research asexplained by Lather (1995) is “to correct both the invisibility and thedistortion of female experience in ways relevant to ending women’sunequal social position” (295). This assertion adequately explains whatthe intentions of this paper are in exploring women’s experiences on theInternet.

The proposed question is what is feminist methodology? Cook &Fonow (1990) suggest four key principles in feminist methodology that isreflected and validated in more contemporary literature. While thissource is not new, the four points are particularly useful insummarizing feminist methodology for this paper. First, gender isconsidered relevant to all social processes. Gender is a very pervasivefactor in the research process; that is to say, that women are thefoundation of the research (Farganis, 1994; Cook & Fonow; Harding, 1987;Stanley & Wise, 1990).

Second, feminist methodology focuses on women’s experience.Research that is explicitly feminist focuses on women’s experiences onthe grounds that traditional research methods assume male experience asnormative (Smith, 1990). Cook & Fonow claim that this approach ignoresgender, which essentially universalizes the masculine experience.Feminist research also recognizes that there are no singularexperiences, nor are experiences static and unchanging (Maynard, 1994;Harding).

Third, feminist research acknowledges that there is adistinctive relationship between subject and researcher. The researcherherself is a gendered being who participates in the social relations ofthe sociological process. The gendered researcher will have her ownunderstanding of the participant’s experience because of her sociallocation (Cook & Fonow; Bloom, 1998; Stanley & Wise) . “In this way,the feminist investigator is able to locate herself as a subject inhistory so that her own vantage point arises from the same socialrelations that structure the everyday worlds of the experiences of thoseshe studies” (Cook & Fonow :73).

Finally, feminist research recognizes the participants as theauthors of the research; there is no separation between subject andobject. Cook & Fonow (1990:76) describe a rejection of thesubject/object separation among feminists. This involves essentiallyavoiding the treatment of subjects as mere objects of knowledge as isthe situation in an interview where the participant can respond and‘talk back’. Wolf (1996) asserts that this issue of power, which is a

emerging issues in on-line Feminist researchcentral dilemma for feminists conducting fieldwork, needs to beaddressed early so that the researcher shares control with the researched.

As well, there are other necessary factors in the researchprocess. Specifically, a focus on conscious raising, an examination ofethical concerns and an emphasis on empowerment and transformation (Cook& Fonow) are three additional factors that are involved in the feministepistemological process. Moreover, feminist research is intended toinitiate some kind of change that improves the lives of women. Hardingindicates that the purpose of research is to explore women’s needs. Oncewomen’s thoughts and desires have been explored through the researchprocess, changes should be made.

Of particular relevance are the issues that Harding raises inher work. Specifically, Harding questions whether there is a feministmethod but instead presents the idea that there are commoncharacteristics central to a feminist method. For example, Hardingasserts that proposed research questions need to come out of women’sexperiences. That is to say that research needs to use women’sexperiences as a resource for future research, which works on the notionthat what women experience is worth studying and worth hearing about (p7).

Harding also proposes that the research is done /for/ women.Utilizing the experiences of women within research would allow women tounderstand themselves and provide women with the explanations andinsights that they crave and desire (p9). She further asserts that theresearcher needs to acknowledge how her identity affects the research.Having the researcher address their own social location and discussinghow it may affect the analysis may alleviate the biases or prejudicesthat may be inherent within the project. Harding introduces thissubjective element into the analysis in the early stages to indicate howthe researcher shapes the research and ultimately the interpretation ofthe participant’s experience.

/Feminist Methodological Process:/

Traditionally methodologists often present the research processas unidirectional. However, as feminist methodologists have made clear(Eichler, 1997; Smith, 1990), most research in fact entails a complexexchange between researcher and researchee. Perhaps nowhere is this moreevident than in Internet research where many of the social boundariesare obscured. In the original research, there was an opportunity toconverse with women by interview or questionnaire. Feminist methodologyinformed the choice to interview women on-line for the initial researchrather than post a questionnaire. While it would have been much simplerto supply women with a set of questions regarding the responses theyreceived from their sites, it was too impersonal for the interests ofthe research.

In connecting with the feminist methodological approach thatwas initially taken, it was important to acknowledge the complexity andthe contradictory nature of human experience (Lather, 1995). Even thoughthere was no face-to-face interaction, the on-line interview processallowed an interaction between researcher and participant in order toexplore the nature of their experiences. The interview permitted thepossibility to access, in an interactive manner, women’s thoughts,ideas and memories in their own words (Reinharz, 1992:19) rather thanthe words of the researcher that would have created for the women in aquestionnaire. Specifically, this method also enables the prospect ofrecording the many anecdotes that the women had to offer to enhance theaccounts of their experiences. Women who were interviewed could

emerging issues in on-line Feminist researchconstruct their own experiences with their own dialogue and interactionwith the interviewer. As the intent of the research was to understandthe participant’s experiences, the on-line dialogue encouraged anunderstanding (or a glimpse) of the wisdom within her world throughpersonal accounts in these interviews (Dant, 1991).

It seems necessary then within a feminist framework toreapproach the initial research and further explore how the women in theresearch felt and responded to the on-line interview. If it is true thatfeminist methodology encourages research methods that recognize thelived experiences of women, then new tools, or methods, need to beuncovered in order to make this a reality. Feminist researchers haveargued that feminist methodology is invariably difficult to define andconcretely contextualize. If feminist methodology is in fact diverse,fluid and eclectic, then it is imperative that new and creativetechniques are uncovered and utilized. Therefore this paper seeks toexplore a new technique of qualitative methodology, specificallycontemporary and creative ways to interview women or encourage women totell their stories.

/Research Challenges:/

1. Gender Identity:

Some feminists (Eichler, 1997; Smith, 1990) believe thatfeminist research involves, and essentially requires, femaleresearchers. As is the case in the initial interview process, my gendermay have contributed to the participant being more open and comfortablein revealing personal on-line experiences. For example, respondents mayhave been more forthcoming since the participants knew they sharedcertain experiences with the female researcher. Because some of thenegative responses the participants encountered may have been from men,the interview may have been tainted had the interviewer been a male.This perspective is also accurate if the participant had been male.While it is pure speculation, it is undeniable that some women might nothave agreed to participate if the interviewer was male.

What becomes rather problematic in on-line research issubstantiating gender in an environment that relies entirely on text. Itis quite conceivable that a person presenting oneself as female mightindeed be biologically male. It is difficult to validate whether theperson I am interviewing is truly female. However, if the approach togender is something that is scripted and socially constructed, thenbiological sex traits are irrelevant and ‘you are what you create’.

2. Creating an Intimate Environment:

It is vital to create a sympathetic and harmonious environmentwhen interviewing women. It is also crucial to validate women’sexperiences by developing a rapport and utilizing probing andexploratory questions where necessary. In the initial research, thisapproach greatly enhanced the on-line interviews. Reinharz (1992)reiterates these concepts in her analysis of feminist research methods.She claims “interviewee-guided research requires great attentiveness onthe part of the interviewer during an interview and a kind of trust thatthe interviewee will lead the interviewer in fruitful directions” (p24).Anderson & Jack (1991) also assert that interviewers need to ensure thatthe interview creates an environment that is comforting in which womencan explore their feelings and explain what they mean in their own terms

emerging issues in on-line Feminist research(p17).

Creating a benevolent environment in a virtual space may bechallenging. In face to face settings it is easier to ‘set the stage’and acquaint oneself with one another. Previous contact betweenresearcher and interviewer may have been initiated or conversations mayhave occurred. Small talk is more permissible in a face to faceinterview, where as in a virtual interview it is imperative that adialogue is created. The virtual interviewer must ensure that measuresare taken to generate conversation between the researcher andparticipant. This may entail an introductory period prior to theinterview so that there is a sense of familiarity and rapport. Withoutthe ‘cues’ of the body or quick clarification of questions, there needsto be a sense of camaraderie in order to create an intimate atmospherein the virtual space.

Furthermore, because there is no face-to-face interaction in anon-line interview, dialoguing effectively in text is imperative.However, this is challenging and often difficult to maintain. Forexample, the tone of statements is hard to verify without body languageor further immediate clarification. It is vital to be concise whenmaking statements or asking questions in an on-line setting. It is herethat open-ending questions may be a bit misleading or even frustratingfor the person being interviewed because they are deliberately vague.Where in a face to face interview open ended and broad questions areexpected and compelling, they may not be conceptualized the same in avirtual space. This is especially true if there is a lack of comfort orfamiliarity between the researcher and participant and the exploratoryquestions are construed as cold and impartial. Several participants weregenerous with ‘emoticons’ such as smiling faces to clarify what theywere in fact trying to convey. The development of a virtual emotionalexpression indicates the necessity for sentiment, particularly in aninterview setting.

3. Accessing Women of all Social Locations:

Part of the initial research process was to contact potentialparticipants through email and request their participation. The use ofemail was beneficial in recruiting participants from all over the world.This was cost effective and allowed the research to incorporate aninternational perspective into the research. However, it is compellingto consider that while the Internet is effective in reaching women whomay not have been previously accessible, this medium is stillconceivably a tool that is related to social class and socialpositioning. A phone or cable line is mandatory for Internet accessbesides the cost of the computer. Therefore women who are researched viathe Internet cannot represent all women as a group, nor can it beassumed that women in different social locations would have similarencounters in Cyberspace. It is integral to recognize this within theresearch design, process and analysis.

/Data Collection:/

As the study focused on a certain sample of the population, itwas necessary to reach the women who participated in the study entitled“Women and the Internet: An Exploratory Study of Feminists inCyberspace”. In total, 23 women were involved in the interview process.However, three women in the study stopped corresponding and three womendid not give enough material for analysis. Therefore, the previous

emerging issues in on-line Feminist researchresearch was formulated upon interviews with 17 women and an email (seeappendix) was sent to each of these 17 women. Of the 17 women, a totalof nine women participated in the new study. However, several issues andevents emerged from the responses.

1. Originally, seven women responded to my call for interviewparticipants. From these only three completed the original interview. Itwas difficult to motivate the women to complete the interview questionsand this was rather disconcerting. Often it was necessary to send outthe interview questions again to several participants as a reminder ofthe process that was occurring. The three completed interviews took twomonths to complete which reflects a lengthy interview process.Participants noted that they were busy with work or school, and theholiday season was a factor in the interview schedule as well.

2. Of the four women who left the interview and the researcher‘dangling’ in Cyberspace, there was no response after a second mail-outof the interview question. At this, as a researcher in desperatecircumstances, something different had to be executed in order tostimulate and motivate the participants to complete the interview. Itwas a perplexing situation of why participants were less interested incompleting the interview process. In reflecting upon the lack ofenthusiasm and participation of the participants, it is conceivable topropose that the interview process did not ‘offer’ anything to theparticipant. The initial research project clearly asserted in theintroductory email that the research would be beneficial to creating apositive on-line space for women. The initial research also worked as acleansing or purging of negative events for many women who haddisturbing on-line experiences. In the secondary research, the benefitof the research results was not clearly presented in a manner thatrevealed; 1. How the participant would benefit from answering thequestions in the interview and 2. How the research results wouldultimately benefit women. Perhaps if this was more clear in theintroduction, more interest would have been taken by the participant.

3. A third email (see appendix) was sent out to the four ‘lost’ womenthat described a change in the structure of the interview. Rather thanhave an interview schedule that was potentially time consuming andconceivably boring to the participants, it was proposed to the womenthat the interview would in fact be more of a narrative. This would givethe participants a chance to tell their story about being interviewedon-line. The remaining four women were given two questions which theycould use to frame their story, or furnish ideas from. From this thirdemail, two of the four women responded to the narrative format tocomplete the interview.

4. Having received response from the participants from the narrativestyle of information exchange, a random selection of six women from theremaining ten women were sent an email (see appendix) inviting them toparticipate in a narrative of their on-line interview experience. Threeof the six have responded and two agreed to talk about the event.Therefore, in total there ten women agreed to be involved in theresearch process, but only six women responded to either the narrativeor interview questions and therefore used in the analysis.

5. Many of the answers to the interview questions were brief and lessdescriptive than the responses from the previous research. Thiscircumstance leads to the possibility of problematic interview questionspresented by the researcher; too broad, too vague and perhaps lacking indepth. Pure speculation would conceivably describe the nature of theresearch as less dynamic then telling about one’s personal experienceson the Internet. It is possible that talking about being interviewedon-line is less interesting than talking about receiving ‘hate’ emails.


/Data Analysis:/

At the beginning of the research process, it was difficult tocharacterize a concise research question. Many ideas emerged including;Can on-line interviewing be a feminist method? What makes on-lineresearch a feminist method? Arguably, any research method can beconceivably ‘feminist’ so it was therefore necessary to consider whatmakes a research method fundamentally feminist? How is a feminist methoddifferent from ‘good qualitative research’? These ‘dilemmas’ continuedthroughout the process.

Once the interviews and narrative were completed, theinterviews were coded through the computer using /Hyper-Research 2.0/.Interviews were coded into twelve general categories and from thesetwelve categories three central findings emerged. While the initialresearch question was finally conceptualized as “How does on-lineinterviewing fit within the framework of feminist methodology?”, queriesabout distinguishing between qualitative and feminist researchcontinued. Interestingly, the research findings helped to clarify whatthe distinction may be between qualitative and feminist methods inresearch. Safety, Privacy and Control are findings that emerged from theparticipant interviews. However, these findings also present newfeminist issues that are surfacing in the virtual world in relation toon-line research.

1. /Safety/

A major concern of the participants that develops into anemerging issue in on-line research is in relation to safety. Threethemes fell under the issue of safety; identity

legitimacy and intimacy. First, there is concern from most participantswhether the interviewer is authentic and caution is exercised until theparticipant is certain that the interviewer is genuine. Similarly, womenare concerned whether the request from myself is in fact legitimate.There is concern whether the interviewer is genuinely female and trulydoing the work that is stated. These issues of identity and legitimacyare safety concerns for women who must protect themselves in the virtualworld. This seems reflective of the ‘real’ physical world where womenconsistently need to be skeptical and wary of men’s intentions. Fear isinherently gendered because women’s fear involves the potential threatof sexual violence. Men generally do not experience the same kind ofsexualized fear, but rather are more inclined to experience fear ofphysical threats or harm. This demonstrates gender manifesting itselfwithin safety issues.

While the same type of fear is actualizing itself on theInternet, women may have more control in the virtual world over thesetting then in the physical world. Women on the Internet are able todistance themselves and posit inquiries about the other person. This isimportant within the research project because this medium has thepotential to empower women.

Third, most of the women who participated in the projectsuggest that there are some problems with an on-line interview schedule.For example, there is the notion that communicating without face-to-faceinteraction lacks intimacy and emotional context because there is nobody language accompanying the text. As well, the open ended and broad

emerging issues in on-line Feminist researchframework of the questions in the on-line interview de-personalizes theapproach. This potentially presents the interview (and the interviewer)in a vague and impersonal manner Also, there is a risk ofmis-communication of questions being proposed. This could be from thelack of ‘tone’ to the emailed question to spelling and grammaticalerrors that could change the context of the question.

There is no doubt that interviewing in an on-line setting hasthe potential to be removed and less intimate than face to face.However, it does not have to be lacking in intimacy. One method toconfront the intimacy issue is to ensure that a dialogue is generatedbetween the researcher and participant. More time may need to be takenin conversing and sending virtual ‘cues’ about who each person is. Trueto feminist methodology then, taking the time to create an intimateexchange and safe setting in on-line research is essential but notimpossible.

2. /Privacy/

As well, an additional theme that surfaces in the interviews isprivacy. Most of the participants indicated that on-line interviewscreate a private space for participants. This private space reflects a‘disembodied’ place where women can feel more at ease with themselvesand their responses. Participants also describe how the on-lineinterview enables them to answer the questions in the comfort of theirhomes or other personal surroundings. As face to face interviews oftentake place in the home of the participant, there is often a sense ofintrusion by the researcher on the researched. This is alleviated in anon-line interview. Connected to the safety theme, this private spaceoffers a sense of security and empowerment for the women in theinterview because it allows them to be more candid, emotional and moreconfident. Interviewing on-line permits women to engage in dialogue fromwork, home, or anywhere else they choose. Having a virtual interviewendures less distractions and more focused and thought out responses.This is beneficial to the participant because she can have time toconsider her feelings without feeling pressured to respond immediately.

3. /Control/

Moreover, the final theme that emerges from the interviews isthe subject of control. Participants observed that the interviewer hadless influence in the interview process than they would in aface-to-face interview. Participants noted that they felt more incontrol over how they responded to the questions (more time todeliberate answers), when they answered the question (how much time totake to respond) and also if they responded at all (to essentiallyfinish the interview if they were discontented with the process).

In the initial research, there were some women who were quitecritical of the research and the interview schedule. These criticismswere conveyed in the email responses to the interview questions. It isapparent that women who were critical of the study within the interviewfelt comfortable enough to ‘voice’ their discontent which might not havehappened in a face-to-face interview. Perhaps it is the nature of the‘faceless’ interview that would compel women to indulge in criticalcommentary. Critical to the discussion is the control that theparticipant has in a virtual interview.

Additionally, participants noted that the on-line interview

emerging issues in on-line Feminist researchallowed for flexibility and convenience. Participants noted that themedium is convenient and were able to utilize email at their leisure(late at night for example) to respond to the interview questions.Consistent with feminist methodology, the on-line interview isempowering to the female participants who are essentially in control ofthe flow of the interview. For example, the participants can answer inany manner they feel suitable. The answers that are supplied to theinterviewer can be either exceptionally long or short and any additionalpieces of information can also be supplied.

Recognizing the time pressures experienced by many adult women- - notably those juggling childcare and paid employment - - the methodis self-consciously feminist in allowing participants to dictate thetiming. The participant can respond at any time that is agreeable toher. If the participant wants to respond immediately, she can do so. Ifhowever she is too busy at the time to answer the question, she can comeback to it at a later date. The on-line interview is not restricting andis formulated to benefit each participant. This is fundamentallyempowering for the women who is being interviewed because she controlsthe pace of the interview.

From the stance of the interviewer, this maybe somewhatproblematic because it impedes the flow of the research. For example,one of the problematic aspects of interviewing on-line is that theprocess can be lengthy. In the initial research, some interviews tookmore than a month to complete because the participants either were toobusy, they forgot to answer the question, or they took considerable timein formulating a concise response. This also surfaced in the secondaryresearch. On several occasions it was necessary to resend the questionto the participant. Because there is no face-to-face interaction, theinterview can supposedly be less socially pressing. Also, it is easy toforget to respond to an email post by leaving it in the ‘In’ box for anindefinite period. Further, there is always the risk that a participantmay delete the post accidentally (or intentionally) or that the postgets lost in cyberspace for technological reasons.

/Conclusions:/

My original intent of the research project was to investigatewhether on-line interviewing was an effective tool for conductingfeminist research. My overall assessment of using the Internet as aninteractive research tool is that the method is quite effective in termsof feminist research methods. The second round of interviewing revealedsome interesting and important issues about conducting research andhelped me to make some differentiations between good qualitativeresearch and feminist research. The issues of safety, privacy andcontrol were three key areas that helped to uncover what some of theconcerns are for women, not only as women, but how these concernsmanifest themselves while conducting research. In conducting feministresearch, most feminist researchers have the issues of safety, privacyand control in mind already (or they should have). While safety, privacyand control are issues that surface in Internet research, as the dataanalysis indicates, on-line interviewing can be a useful and empoweringfeminist tool for women when conducting feminist research.

Because of the time restraints and size limitations to thisresearch paper, many further discussions must be left unexplored andmany areas of the paper require further explanation and investigation.Often the research findings generated more questions for myself andrevealed many additional themes that must be left for another project.Most of this paper is exploratory but hopefully addresses, albeit

emerging issues in on-line Feminist researchbriefly, the issues concerning Cyberfeminist research and methodology.

There are some questions that I ask myself as a researcher,which I feel every researcher should do once a project is completed;what would I do differently and where do I go from here? Initially, myfirst response to these queries is to improve on my own on-lineinterview skills and perhaps let women create their own ‘interview’ ordialogue. I would certainly spend more time creatively and intimatelydialoguing with the many interesting women. It is easy for me to getcaught up in the structures of the interview without allowing myself tostray outside the interview schedule. I think this is problematic and Ifind that I am guilty of trying to legitimate my research by strictlyadhering to a script or a process. This is not the most ‘feminist’ thingto do and clearly reflects the dilemma of legitimating feminist andqualitative methodology.

In the future, I plan to continue using the Internet as a toolin my feminist research. As one of my participants stated; “It’s veryimportant we keep this as a tool for safe, productive communication forall of us”. There are far too many advantages of the Internet to womento let this tool fall by the wayside. I have the ability to reach womenglobally and transgress traditional research boundaries. By utilizingthe Internet as a research tool, I am able to complete research thatempowers women and work towards social change;

Since women’s lives are fashioned by the sexual division of labour, wehave to fit our lives between the cracks andcreases of homework...Internet research accommodates our needs. We can pop on the webat a moment’s notice between adiaper and bottle ordusting and dancing...and so on.

*References*

Anderson, K., Jack, D.C. (1991) “Learning to Listen: InterviewTechniques and Analyses” in /Women’s Words: The Feminist Practice ofOral History/ (eds) S. Gluck & D. Patay, pp. 11-25. New York: Routledge.

Bloom, L. (1998) /Under the Sign of Hope: Feminist Methodology andNarrative Interpretation./ Albany: State University Press.

Berg, B. (1998) /Qualitative Research methods for the Social Sciences./Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cook, J. A., Fonow, M.M. (1990) “Knowledge and Women’s Interests: Issuesof Epistemology and Methodology in Feminist Sociological Research” in/Feminist Research methods: Exemplary Readings in the Social Sciences/(ed) J. McCarl Nielson, pp. 69-91. San Francisco: Westview.


Costigan, James T. (1999) “Forest, Trees, and Internet Research” in/Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining theNet /(ed) Steve Jones, pp. xvii-xxiii. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Cushing, Pamela J. (1996) “Gendered Conversational Rituals on theInternet: An Effective Voice is Based on More than Simply What One isSaying” in /Anthropologica/, 38, 1, 47-80.

Eichler, Margrit (1997) “Feminist Methodology” in /Current Sociology/,April 1997, Vol 45 (2), pp.9-36. London: Sage Publications.

Farganis, S. (1994) “Postmodernism and Feminism” in /Postmodern andSocial Inquiry/, (eds) David Dickens & Andrea Fontana, pp 101-126, NewYork: Guilford Press

Frankel, M., Siang, S. (1999) /Ethical and Legal Aspects of HumanSubjects Research on the Internet. /American Association for theAdvancement of Science, Washington D.C.

Hading, S. (1987) “ Introduction: Is there a Feminist Method?” in/Feminism and Methodology/. (Ed) Sandra Harding, pp 1-14, Bloomington:Indiana University Press

Kendall, Lori (1999) “Recontextualizing Cyberspace: MethodologicalConsiderations for

On-line Research” in /Doing Internet Research: Critical Issuesand Methods for/

/ Examining the Net /(ed) Steve Jones, pp. 57-75. Thousand Oaks:Sage Publications.

Lather, Patti (1995) “Feminist Perspectives on Empowering ResearchMethodologies”

in /Debates and Issues in Feminist Research and Pedagogy/(eds) J. Holland &

M. Blair, pp. 292-305. Cleveland: Open University Press.

Maynar, M. (1994) “Methods, Practice and Epistemology: The Debate aboutFeminism and Research” in /Researching Women’s Lives From a FeministPerspective/. (Eds) Mary Maynard & June Purvis, pp 10-26, London: Taylorand Francis.

Reinharz, S. (1992) /Feminist Methods in Social Research/. New York:

emerging issues in on-line Feminist researchOxford Press.Smith,

Sharf, B. (1999) “Beyond Netiquette: The Ethics of Doing NaturalisticDiscourse Research on the Internet” in /Doing Internet research:critical issues and methods for examining the Net./ (Ed) Steve Jones, Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage Publications, pp 243-256.

Smith Dorothy E. (1990) /The Conceptual Practices of Power: A FeministSociology of/

/ Knowledge/ . University of Toronto Press: Toronto.

Stanley, L., Wise, S. (1990) “Method, methodology and epistemology infeminist

research processes” in /Feminist Praxis: Research Theory,Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology/ (ed) Liz Stanley, pp.20-47. New York: Routledge.

Winter, Debra; Huff Chuck. “Adapting the Internet: Comments from aWomen-Only

Electronic Forum” in /The American Sociologist/. 1996, 27,1 spring, 30-54.

Wolf, D. (1996) “Situating Feminist Dilemma in Fieldwork” in/Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork/. (Ed) Diane Wolf, pp 1-55,Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

emerging_ issues_feminist_research

Documents