Using the F-Word

The Beginning Stage: Grace’s Story

In the tradition of La Nauze (1996, p. 101), my research is conscious of the following “generic set of feminist practice principles.” I recognize the importance of working toward structural change; of engaging in research methods that encourage and support women to put forward their views and opinions about the research topic; and of building a mutually supportive network that not only supports me through the research process but a network where I can support others. Further, I apply a rural lens that is informed by gender and diversity, and continually seek to link the “personal” experience of myself, my students, my fellow academics, my fellow practitioners, and the people with whom we work, to the “political” context.

I began my doctoral research in 2005. I am a part-time student at the University of Melbourne and am at the beginning stages of the research process. My research topic is educating social workers for rural practice.

As a feminist, I bring with me a particular understanding and influence to the research process. My feminist orientation permeates choices relating to the research topic, the methodology, and the methods of sampling, data collection, and data analysis. Ultimately, feminist epistemology impacts and affects the way that I write about the topic and the way that I will disseminate the findings.

For me the nature of my research is influenced primarily by critical feminism, which has as its basis, the need to bring about social change which is positive for women. Critique and action are of paramount importance to me. I envisage that change will take place at a number of different levels during the research process; there will be change within myself, change in understanding the subject matter, and change in the way that I conduct and undertake the research. It is anticipated that there will also be positive change for those teaching social work students and the communities in which they will work.

Part of my study requires the move to link classroom learning to broader social movements such as feminism. How can we, as social work educators, “work tactfully and strategically to advance the interests of the disenfranchised,” and how can we, “confront and undermine dominant ideology” (Brookfield, 2005, p. 32). There are layers upon layers of disenfranchised women in my study; female academics, female social work students, female graduates/social workers, and female clients. These groups are often impacted by the dominant ideology of male patriarchy in our society, and I would contend that often in Australia it is a male urban-centric version of the world (Mason, 2004). So, the study begins with an awareness of the position of women in this study whether they are academics, students, or clients.

The study has its origins in reflecting on my own experience as a young woman returning to a rural community to practice social work after undertaking a social work degree where the dominant discourse was male and urban (Green, Gregory, & Mason, 2009). Similar stories told by my students entering the field for the first time in rural practice, echoed my experience that the “fit” between learning about practice is incongruent with the rural context in which we all work.

The research design I have chosen is a mixed-methods approach. I utilize survey material, in-depth interviews, and participant journals. In particular, I am interested to hear from practitioners and academics who teach social workers about rural practice. The survey will help me to identify academics committed to teaching about rural practice. These academics will be followed up with an interview, where I am particularly interested in how these academics convert “practice wisdom” and theory into exemplars that can be utilized to teach students about rural practice. The participant journals will be kept by practitioners educating social work students in the field about issues specific to rural practice. I hope that by engaging such methods I will create a rich tapestry of multiple voices in social work education for rural practice and that many of these voices will be those of female academics and practitioners.

I would like the research process to be inclusive, participatory, collaborative, and mutually beneficial. Many stories about methods and ways of teaching about rural practice will be told and it is my intention to capture the variety inherent in this story telling about teaching and learning. Furthermore information gathered about teaching and learning will be fed back to participants, and information sharing that benefits all will take place at several steps along the way including feedback following data collection. Additionally, through the final write-up, information will be gathered into a text that can be utilized by social work educators to teach about rural practice.

The literature review conducted so far has gleaned some interesting observations. Rural practice has implicit within it many “women’s ways of knowing” (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1997). The literature speaks of the importance for practitioners to belong to the community in which they live; about the difficulties associated with living and working in the same community; and of the need for a different more community-minded way of working as a social worker. The concept of relationship building in order to focus on building whole communities is important in rural practice. Practice in rural communities is often developed through personal as well as professional engagement; through the knowledge of and action through networks and connections. These ways of -working are also echoed in the feminist literature particularly the literature relating to feminist community practice (Goodman et al., 2007; Hyde, 2005; La Nauze & Weeks, 1999). Focusing on practice is in and of itself a feminist issue; practice wisdom is often devalued in academic circles where theory down rather than theory up methods are given greater credibility (Pascal & Brown, 2009).

The Middle Stages: Deb’s Story

I am researching the use of journals by women with depression and exploring how keeping a journal may assist women in their recovery process. I had done very little research during my undergraduate studies or during my years as a social worker. I had not realized how enculturated I was about what constituted “real” research until I began researching. My assumptions were that “real” research was scientific, objective, factual, and quantitative, (although I did not know it was called that at the time).

Realizing that there was a whole other way of undertaking research was a surprise, but it felt much more natural to me and made more sense in terms of including and listening to people in the research. I knew from the beginning that I wanted to research with women because much of my work had been with women survivors of sexual assault and family violence. I had practised from a feminist perspective and this perspective not only fitted my personal and professional beliefs about women’s place in society, but it also extended my thinking and understanding about the role of concepts such as power, gender, working relationships, voice, and identity; all issues relevant to feminist epistemologies, as well as to my topic of the development of depression in women.

It thus became important for me to find a methodology that would enable me to stay true to my feminist modes of understanding the world and of working and interacting with other women. I wanted to include women in the process of the research to enable them to tell their stories and to have a voice in the research. In the process of doing this, I wished to acknowledge that the happenings and experiences of women in their everyday lives were full of meaning and rich sources of knowledge. I hoped to undertake research that was informative and transformative for the women and for me, (a principle also emphasized in Grace’s research), and I hoped that I could develop reciprocal relationships with the women where we could learn from each other; I did not want the relationships to be one way and I did not want to take on the role of “expert” (Dinnerman, 2002). I wanted to include my own experiences in the research and to hold these alongside the experiences of the other women; I considered subjective experience as valid and valuable. I aspired to engage in a process that enabled and encouraged reflection on that process; acknowledging and understanding the process of the research as it unfolded and progressed was as important as the outcome of the research for me. Finally, I planned to acknowledge the role and position of my values, assumptions, beliefs, and understandings as a woman, as a researcher, and as a participant in the research and how these might contribute to the process and to the data. I, therefore, held an awareness of the process and importance of not only reflection, but of reflexivity (Daly, 2010; Gringeri et al., 2012).

With all that in mind, I chose the methodology of Cooperative Inquiry, a form of action research; “ … a form of participative, person-centred inquiry which does research with people not on them or about them” (Heron & Reason, 2006, p. 19). Many of the principles on which Cooperative Inquiry is based overlap with feminist principles of research. Each person involved in a Cooperative Inquiry (a coinquirer) has the opportunity to take on equal roles and responsibilities including making decisions about the content and the method of the inquiry.

A Cooperative Inquiry consists of a number of action and reflection cycles in which the researchers participate in activities to explore the topic and to try new ways of behaving (action) and then come together to reflect on, and share, what they have learned and discovered from their experience (reflection; Heron & Reason, 2006). Seven women and I participated in and completed seven action/reflection cycles. Throughout the Cooperative Inquiry, we generated considerable data about the nature of journaling, the narratives and themes within journaling, the ways in which women employed journaling during times of depression, and the outcomes and changes that women achieved from journaling that assisted them in their recovery from depression.

The End Stages and Writing Up: Jan’s Story

My ideological standpoint as a feminist was compatible with phenomenology. Broadly, both epistemologies share a focus on lived experience, being-in-the-world (personal and social), subjective experience, intersubjectivity, relationships, embodiment, and historical context as ways of being and knowing (Campbell & Wasco, 2000; Steeves, 2000). Although my study is explicitly phenomenological in design and method, it remains underpinned by feminist assumptions.

My doctoral research was an exploration of the lived experience of cancer survival, incorporating an explicitly Heideggerian framework and analysis (Heidegger, 2000). The study, broadly speaking, was within a psychooncology context, but also incorporated social constructionism and meaning-making literature. I used unstructured interviews to gain maximum access to participant lived experience and narrative structure (Sarantakos, 2001; Steeves, 2000). As a researcher, interviews allowed for discovery of subjective meaning and interpretation, core aims of the study (Rice & Ezzy, 1999).

I recruited 15 participants with a range of cancer diagnoses and prognoses, from the regional area in which I work and reside. Several participants volunteered from a cancer support group I had previously cofacilitated. This occurred at an agency where I had been employed as a social worker. These multiple roles, as Grace indicated earlier, are embedded in rural social work. Added to this was my own diagnosis of breast cancer; these all strengthened the emic nature of the research (Padgett, 1998). Further analysis of my field experience is explicated elsewhere (Pascal, 2005).

The in-depth interviews explored issues of being-in-the-world including thoughts, feelings, relationships, temporality, embodiment, and spirituality. The analysis was abductive (Ezzy, 2002, p. 14), incorporating Heideggerian theory, as well as the emerging stories of lived experience. Using NVivo analysis software (Bazaley, 2007), I developed a complex coding system that was then converted into overarching themes.

Major findings from the study emphasized that cancer survival phenomenon persist beyond the acute and treatment stages. Of importance was the embodied everyday nature of these changes to one’s being-in-the world and the implications for personal identity (particularly for sexuality, parenthood, and fertility). There were also marked changes to state of mind, and while not indicative of diagnostic mental health, nonetheless, fear and uncertainty were found to be juxtaposed with the “positive thinking” expectations. Of further importance was the temporal experience of self, usually in context of family and social relationships; these were not unproblematic and cannot be understood only as support. For many, cancer survival meant profound and subtle shifts in understanding relationships, at times leading to disconnection and isolation from family and friends.

Changes to body, mind, and identity raised metaphysical questions of who am I and what is a good life: that is, questions of meaning and purpose. The everyday Western democratic context of family, work, and consumerism were all revised in the aftermath of a cancer experience. Initially, these revisions led to feelings of “not being at home” in one’s world, thereby increasing anxiety. However, angst and the acceptance of one’s possible death oftentimes revealed alternative possibilities for care and concern for being in the world. New meanings and possibilities were encountered, with the capacity for enhanced, rather than diminished identity. This was an ongoing, and at times problematic and cyclical, process that continued throughout survival.

So, What Does All This Mean and Does Feminist Research Really Matter?

Beyond our individual experiences, we have reflected upon being women based at a regional university, where feminist ideology is not explicitly included in pedagogy, curriculum development, or research programs. We have shared with you our everyday lived (research) experiences and narratives of the structural contexts in which we are situated. We have grappled with how we have attempted to, or succeeded in, remaining true to feminist epistemologies and feminist research principles in our research and in our personal lives despite obstacles such as expectations from other people regarding our roles, the place of feminist research in rural and academic contexts, and the possible implications of identifying as feminist qualitative researchers—as outmoded and redundant as this might sound in the 21st century.

We believe gender, combined with rural context, presents both challenge and opportunities. The challenge is largely around structural disadvantage of a practical nature. Access to resources, relationships, and partnerships with senior academics and the flow of publications and research funding are all limited. Furthermore, there is status anxiety, with a privileging of some knowledge (e.g., metropolitan health sciences and preference for “traditional,” nonmessy research designs, and semantics in this case) over others (rural social work and research within the margins). This is partly funding and economy of scale, but also ideological hegemony requiring transparent critique.

Given these barriers, how and why have we maintained our feminist research integrity? In believing that feminist research matters, we have remained true to our own values and beliefs in representing women’s experiences and knowledge in the doing of research. As social workers, we are also guided by our personal and professional values of client worth and dignity; the valuing of diversity and difference; and the pursuit of social justice and human rights through, for example, social and systemic change and advocacy (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2010). Articulating and presenting viewpoints from marginalized populations remain central to our research projects, as does working toward gender equity and awareness. Our commitment to feminist research makes a contribution to the dialogue surrounding the ongoing development of feminist epistemologies.

The opportunities that are available in our context involve speaking about and modeling feminist practice and research to not only students but to colleagues, academic boards, and committees, and to the community in order to demonstrate myriad ways in which feminist approaches enlighten, explain, and challenge our understandings of the world. We hope to encourage other rural postgraduate women to research from feminist and gender-informed perspectives, standpoints, and knowledges and to explore the ways in which this research can be creative, innovative, questioning and, yes, disruptive to the status quo in academia and in society. We also encourage rural postgraduate women to contribute to feminist research and practice literature—areas in which contributions have been scarce in recent years.

Our narratives have embodied the chronology of our lived experiences of doctoral research. This reflexive stance has enabled us to be both personal and political, and locate our own experiences within a broader cultural context; that is, to provide a frank account of the nature of being a feminist researcher in the current (neoliberal) university context. In our own voices, we have shared our choices of qualitative theory, design, and methods and the ways in which feminist epistemology have shaped our thinking, and feeling, about our academic identities. This has been a transformative experience for us as women, authors, and researchers.