Thus Jar we have discussed and presented feminist research methods in philosophical terms: we have considered it primarily as one among many different ways of knowing. Cook and Fonow describe in a lucid~ well- . organized manner the concrete elements, or "nuts and bolts," of feminist
research methods. Many of the themes that were discussed in the Introduction and in the preceding paper by Westkott-the shift in focus to women, the importance ol consciousness-raising and knowledge for women, and the transformational, or emancipatory, power of women studies-are concretely exemplified in this chapter. Although Cook and Fonow's thesis is based on . work published primarily in sociological sources, it nevertheless captures the essence of feminist work in all social
69
70 Judith A. Cook and Mary Margaret Fonow sciences. (They do not talk specifically about oral history, but it is treated in the following chapter.)
In this paper we are concerned with analyzing current issues in feminist methodology as they appear in the writings of scholars working within the discipline of sociology. We have chosen to limit our analysis to works which were published or produced during the past nine years in order to focus on the most recent developments in this area, and to assess the cumulative effects of earlier feminist critiques of sociological methods and the assumptions which underlie them (e.g., Bernard, 1973; Smith, 1974; Millman and Kanter, 1975). We have also decided to focus on literature which is explicitly sociological in its subject matter and authorship. This has involved excluding recent developments in feminist methodology within other social science disciplines such as psychology and anthropology (see special issues of the journals Psychology of Women Quarterly[Unger, 1981] and Women's Studies [Scheper-Hughes, 1983]), and in fields ranging from history and literature (see The Prism of Sex: Essays in the Sociology of Knowledge [Sherman and Beck, 1979]) to philosophy and metaphysics (see Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science [Harding and Hintikka, 1983]). This strategy has been chosen to enable a summary .of the progress made by feminist sociologists in transforming the epistemological and methodological nature of their own discipline and to highlight areas in which changes are necessary but, as yet, unaccomplished.
THE CONCEPT OF FEMINIST METHODOLOGY
The very notion of feminist methodology is an elusive concept because we have been trained to think in terms of a positivist schema which equates the term "methodology" with specific techniques for gathering and analyzing information. Instead, our use of the concept mirrors that of Abraham Kaplan's treatise on the conduct of contemporary social inquiry, in which he proposes that methodology refers to the study of methods and not simply to the specific techniques themselves: "The aim of methodology, then, is to describe and analyze these methods, throwing light on their limitations and resources, clarifying their presuppositions and consequences, relating their potentialities to the twilight zone at the frontiers of knowledge" (1964:23). Thus, our analysis has taken a sociology-of-knowledge approach to the concept of
Reprinted from Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 56, No. I, Winter 1986:2-29. Used by permission of the University of Texas Press.
Knowledge and Women s Interests 71
feminist methodology by examining both its practice in actual research and its underlying epistemological assumptions (Stacey and Thorne, 1985).
To a certain extent, we have found it difficult to formulate a closed concept of feminist methodology in sociology because of the gap between how epistemological assumptions are discussed in the abstract and how they are articulated in the empirical research studies we examined. On the one hand, feminist methodology is often presented as consisting of a number of assertions about the nature of social reality and sociological inquiry; on the other hand, pieces of empirical research may incorporate only one, two, or perhaps three of these ideas. Thus, a question arises over which is the real feminist methodology. Is feminist methodology that which feminist reasearchers do or that which they aim for? We argue that, at least within the field of sociology, feminist methodology is in the process of becoming and is not yet a fully articulated stance. Attempts to impose premature closure on definitions of feminist methodology run the risk of limiting its possibilities by stipulating a "correct" set of techniques without adequate opportunity to examine a wide variety of other approaches for their feminist relevance.
Moreover, we have focused on attempts to develop a theory of feminist methodology as well as the actual practice of feminist methodology because of our belief that knowledge should not be limited solely to what exists at present. In other words, rather than confining our analysis to studies where feminist methodology has been employed, we think it is important to include literature exploring the potential applications and paths of development of this concept. Following Immanuel Kant's notion of criticism (1933), we view feminist methodology as incorporating a critique of social science which includes reflections on the sources and potentials of possible knowledge. So, like Marcia Westkott ( 1979), we reject the conservatizing limitation of a phenomenon to the factual recording of what is, suppressing the likelihood that liberating alternatives will be discovered.
Moreover, we recognize the problems in detaching epistemological analysis from its substantive base. We agree with Liz Stanley and Sue Wise (1983:181) that "abstract discourse" is of little help to feminist scholars without an understanding of "direct experience directly related to us" as women and as researchers. We do not feel, as do Stanley and Wise, that one is preferable to the other; our framework views them as different aspects of the same phenomenon. But we do feel that understanding feminist methodology in sociology involves attending to the linkages between how it is done and how it is analyzed, rather than focusing only on one or the other.
Thus, our notion of feminist methodology is one which has emerged out of our reading of sociological literature of two types. The first concerns feminist analyses of the epistemological assumptions which underlie different ways of knowing the social and of understanding women's experiences. This includes those researchers who employ the self-reflective process in examining and interpreting their methodological stances and practices in regard to feminist ideals. The second type of literature includes empirical research on
72 Judith A. Cook and Mary Margaret Fonow gender asymmetry that we feel incorporates these feminist assumptions into the techniques and strategies used to gather and analyze data. We located both types by searching the methodology and gender listings in Sociological Abstracts for the years 1977 through 1985, and by our own general knowledge of research in the field of feminist scholarship. (For a recent bibliography on feminist methodology, see Reinharz, Bombyk, and Wright, 1983.) We selected particular works in order to maximize the varieties displayed by the field; we were not attempting to see which methods were most frequently used by feminist ãresearchers. Instead, we were interested in examining the variety of research strategies which have been informed by feminist as- sumptions about the nature of social reality. Moreover, our search for empirical studies was guided by a concern with methodological innovation; thus, we sought out those studies which used strategies not typically employed in mainstream sociological research.
To summarize, then, our notion of feminist methodology includes more than just a focus on the research techniques of feminist scholars. As we have applied the concept, it encompasses two interrelated dimensions: (1) the epistemological ideas of feminist methodology found in literature analyzing its possibilities, and (2) the methodological practices of feminist methodology displayed in studies of gender domination and subordination. Because of a desire to avoid premature closure of the concept, we have not formulated a universal definition or set of necessary and sufficient criteria; we feel there is no "correct" feminist methodology within the . field of sociology at this point in time. Finally, we are aware of the problems inherent in focusing solely on the abstract components of feminist methodology, thereby detaching epistemology from its contextual base in actual research studies. Because of this, we have concentrated on uncovering the interrelations between these two levels as well as within them.
With all of these issues in mind, the following section presents some basic principles that run throughout sociological analyses of feminist epis- temology. While few feminist empirical studies incorporate every one of these principles, all acknowledge at least one or two. This latter point will be discussed in a second section on applications of feminist principles to approaches in empirical research.
Principles of Feminist Methodology
From a review of the literature we have identified five basic epistemological principles discussed by scholars who have analyzed feminist methodology in the field of sociology. They include (1) the necessity of continuously and reflexively attending to the significance of gender and gender asymmetry as a basic feature of all social life, including the conduct of research; (2) the centrality of consciousness-raising as a specific methodological tool and as a general orientation or "way of seeing"; (3) the need to challenge the norm of objectivity that assumes that the subject and object of research can be separated from one another and that personal and/or grounded experiences are unscientific; (4) concern for the ethical implications of feminist research
Knowledge and Women$ Interests 73 and recognition of the exploitation of women as objects of knowledge; and (5) emphasis on the empowerment of women and transformation of patriarchal social institutions through research.
Acknowledging the Pervasive Influence of Gender. Attending to the significance of gender as a basic fact of social life involves a number of factors. First and perhaps foremost, women and their experiences, including but not solely their relations to men, are the focus of inquiry (Epstein, 1981). Thus, investigations employing feminist methodology view women through a "female prism" in "research devoted to a description, analysis, explanation, and interpretation of the female world" (Bernard, 1979:274).
Often these investigations occur within a sphere that has been socially lived as personal so that feminist methodology does not deny or discount the subjective but rather seeks to validate the private, emotional interiorized, intimate world (MacKinnon, 1982).
A second aspect of this principle involves the recognition that much of what masquerades as sociological knowledge about human behavior is in fact knowledge about male behavior (Ward and Grant, 1984). Taking men as the normal subjects of research is a way of ignoring gender that results in equating the masculine with the universal (ASA Committee on the Status of Women in Sociology, 1980). Such unexamined assumptions regarding scientific objectivity often serve to obscure patriarchal bias at the very core of science (Cook, 1983). David Morgan (1981) proposes that academic discourse is, in reality, a male discourse hiding behind the labels of science, rationality, and scholarship. Since men dominate academic settings, where much research is carried out, they create a male scientific culture characterized by male sociability and grounded in an academic "machismo."
A third way of attending to gender is to locate the researcher as a gendered being (Eichler, 1980) in the web of social relations that simultaneously influences the analytical and interpretive procedures of sociology and shapes the life experiences of the researcher. For example, Dorothy Smith (1981:36) views social relations-the "regular, repetitive and differentiated work ac- tivities of individuals related to one another in modes to which property relations are central"-as the starting point for every analysis, so that explications of these relations allows the feminist researcher to understand the actions of another individual. In this way, the feminist investigator is able to locate herself as a subject in history so that her own vantage point arises from the same social relations that structure the everyday worlds of the experiences of those she studies. Understanding the common experiences of women researchers and women subjects in a society characterized by a marked degree of gender asymmetry enables the feminist researcher to bring women's realities into sharper focus.
To summarize, acknowledging the importance of gender in social life and social research means a variety of things to feminist sociologists. Specifically, it involves defining women as the focus of analysis, recognizing the central place that men have held in most sociological analysis, and viewing gender as a crucial influence on the network of relations encompassing the research act.
74 Judith A. Cook and Mary Margaret Fonow Focus on Consciousness-Raising. The concept of consciousness-raising is incorporated into feminist methodology in a variety of ways. The feminist consciousness of the researcher (and the researched), the use of consciousness- raising techniques as a research method, and the consciousness-raising potential of the research act are the three most salient features of this aspect of epistemology (Richardson, Fonow, and Cook, 1985).
As an outcome of being in society but ndt of society, feminist scholars inhabit the world with a "double vision of reality" which is part of their feminist consciousness (Stanley and Wise, 1983). Through this double vision
"women's understandings of our lives are transformed so that we see, understand and feel them in a new and quite different way" at the same time that we see them in the "old way," enabling us "to understand the seemingly endless contradictions present within life" (1983:54). This ability to penetrate official interpretations of reality and apprehend contrary forces places feminists in a position to name, describe, and define women's ex- periences, in essence to conceptualize or in some cases reconceptualize social reality. At the methodological level, an awareness of the double consciousness that. arises from being a member of an oppressed class (women) and a privileged class (scholars) enables feminist researchers to explore women's perceptions of their situation from an experiential base (Reinharz, 1983).
According to Maria Mies (1983), if women's lives are to be made visible,
"Feminist women must deliberately and courageously integrate their repressed, unconscious female subjectivity, i.e., their own experience of oppression and discrimination, into the research process" (1983:121). Because women and other exploited groups are forced, out of self-preservation, to know the motives of their oppressors as well as how oppression and exploitation feel to the victims, they are better equipped to comprehend and interpret women's experiences.
Scholars who possess the double vision of reality are also in a better position to understand various responses to oppression, particularly the contradictions between action and consciousness. Westkott (1979) maintains that the freedom to implement consciousness through activity will vary greatly by race, class, and gender. Thus, research methods which overemphasize quantification force the researcher to pose structural questions about action while ignoring the subjective dimension of behavior, as well as the contra- dictions between action and consciousness. Such an approach ignores the fact that women simultaneously oppose and conform to conditions that deny their freedom. However, this split between conforming behavior and con- sciousness opens the possibility of at least imagining one's freedom. In this way, "consciousness can be viewed as women's sphere of freedom, a sphere that exists simultaneously with unfree, conforming behavior," so that meth- odological overreliance on recording behavior and failure to tap the private terrain of consciousness neglects "the most important area of women's creative expression of self in a society which denies that freedom in behavior"
(1979:429).
Consciousness-raising as a specific methodological tool has been advocated by a number of feminist sociologists (Mies, 1983; Stanley and Wise, 1983;
Knowledge and Women s Imeresrs 75
Reinharz, 1983). One way this can be done is to examine situations that typically produce changes in consciousness, such as divorce, unemployment, widowhood, infertility, rape, physical abuse, and sexual harassment. Studying crisis situations increases the likelihood that the researcher and subject will relate during a more self-conscious "click" moment. "Only when there is a rupture in the 'normal' life of a woman ... is there a chance for her to become conscious of her condition" (Mies, 1983:125). The rupture with normalcy serves to demystify the "naturalness" of patriarchal relations and enables the subject to view reality in a different way.
Another application of this method is through the use of specific con- sciousness-raising techniques, such as role playing, rap groups, simulations, and psycho-drama, in a more selt:conscious, deliberate manner. These ap- proaches have provided feminist researchers with a way to tap women's collective consciousness as a source of data and have provided participants in the research project with a way to confirm the experiences of women which have often been denied as real in the past (Reinharz, 1983). Mies suggests a shift from individual interviews toward group discussions held over a period of time to obtain more diverse data and also to help female subjects "overcome their structural isolation in their families and to understand that their individual sufferings have social causes" (1983:128). Similarly, Thelma McCormack (1981) proposes the use of simulation to examine processes such as persuasion and problem solving in a controlled laboratory setting designed to encourage role flexibility and freedom from one's personal biography. She notes that simulation techniques enable women to ignore history in formulating their behavior and that such a method generates affective responses among subjects that result in consciousness-raising.
Finally, the research process itself can become a process of "conscienti- zation" for both the researcher and the subjects of research. The methodology of conscientization has been borrowed from Paulo Freire and adapted to feminist analysis by Mies (1983). This problem-formulating method makes the objects of research the subjects of research. In the process of learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, the people are motivated to take action against the oppressive elements of reality (1983:126).
Thus, the outcome of research is greater awareness leading to social change.
In summary, then, the theme of consciousness-raising is a central tenet of feminist methodology in a variety of different forms. First, a researcher's feminist consciousness can serve as a source of knowledge and insight into gender asymmetry and how it is managed in social life. Second, consciousness- raising techniques can be used to elicit data from respondents while con- sciousness-raising life-course transitions provide an opportune context in which to examine women's worlds. Finally, the process of conscientization combines consciousness-raising and social change through encouraging pol- iticization and activism on the part of research subjects.
Rejection of the Subject/Object Separation. Feminists have questioned the normative structure of science, including the canon of objectivity. Chief among their concerns arc the rigid dichotomy between the researcher and
76 Judith A. Cook and Mary Margaret Fonow the researched and the resulting objectification of women and tendency to equate quantification with value neutrality.
Epistemologically, feminist methodology rejects the assumption that main- taining a strict separation between researcher and research subject produces a more valid, objective account. One way in which feminists avoid treating their subjects as mere objects of knowledge is to allow the respondent to
"talk back" to the investigator. An example of this is Ann Oakley's feminist paradigm for interviewing (1981) which seeks to minimize objectification of the subject as data by viewing the interview as an interactional exchange.
In her framework, answering the questions of interviewees personalizes and humanizes the researcher and places the interaction on a more equal footing.
The meaning of the interview to both the interviewer and the interviewee and the quality of interaction between the two participants are all salient issues when a feminist interviews women. Oakley also points out that interactive interviewing is an approach which documents women's own accounts of their experiences and allows the sociologist to garner knowledge not simply for the sake of knowledge itself but for the women who are providing information. Similarly, mechanical failure of her tape recorder led Helena Lopata (1980) to discover that, without a predetermined interview schedule, widows focused on subjects very different from those she had thought would be important. This feedback from respondents was then used to construct a better survey instrument, more responsive to the actual concerns of the women.
Wi:thin the tradition of action research, several feminist sociologists advocate a participatory research strategy which emphasizes the dialectic between researcher and researched throughout the entire research process, including formulation of research problem, collection of data, interpretation of findings, and implementation of results (Abdullah and Zeidenstein, 1978;
Barndt, 1980; Fonow, 1985). The researcher's understanding of her con- nectedness to the experiences of the research subject through partial idenc tification is labeled "conscious partiality" by Mies and becomes for her a way to replace mere "spectator knowledge," which emphasizes neutrality and indifference toward subjects' lives (1983:123).
Feminists have been pointed in their analysis of how this false dichotomy between subject and object obscures the political domination of women through their objectification in research. According to Smith (1979), feminists are in the unique position to understand how sociological methods conceal the social relations between the knower and the object. As researchers try to include women as subjects they cannot fail to notice how the practice of sociology transforms all actors into objects. "As women we become objects to ourselves as subjects. We ourselves, therefore, can look back as subjects constituted as objects in that relation, and in doing so, we disclose its essential contradiction" (1979:159). Feminist consciousness of the link between the knower and subject can not only serve to demystify objectivity and the objectification of women, but also extends our understanding of how the exploitations of women as data mirrors the treatment of women