Abstract
As with any promising book I pick up, I wanted to know how this one ended. In the third and final reflection chapter of Feminist Evaluation and Research: Theory and Practice, Jennifer Greene describes herself as “a feminist, but not a feminist scholar” (p. 333). Taking her lead, I begin with a self-description. I grew up knowing I’m Māori (indigenous peoples of Aotearoa, New Zealand) and so dismissed offhand those people who questioned why I would lay claim to this identity when my fair skin meant to them that I could pass for White. Feminist challenges in my adult years did, however, make me contemplate an upbringing that left me with a love of fairy tales and boxing. I then found an identity crossroad when I took my baby son to mana wahine (the status of Māori women) seminars at university and no one queried my right to have him there. It is from this place as an indigenous woman (with what might best be described as a minor [or subplot] in feminism) that I undertake this review.
This volume has its roots in the early 1990s and the promotion of feminist evaluation by the Feminist Topical Interest Group of the American Evaluation Association. Conversations among a growing network of feminist scholars then led to a 2002 issue of the journal New Directions for Evaluation (NDE) devoted to “Feminist Evaluation: Explorations and Experiences” (Seigart & Brisolara, 2002). The present book represents another milestone, bringing together some of the same authors involved in the NDE volume and adding others from around the world. As noted in the preface, this includes places where the “f” (feminist) word is not well received (p. viii). There is a sense that this volume, like the NDE issue before it, has been hard fought for and a tribute is made to those who have consistently pushed for these outputs. As Kathryn Sielbeck-Mathes and Rebecca Selove write in their chapter, “[t]he ultimate aim is to generate knowledge that can be used to create change that makes a difference in the lives of women” (p. 163).
The 10 chapters in the volume are clustered into three broad sections: (1) feminist theory, research, and evaluation; (2) feminist evaluation in practice; and (3) feminist research in practice. The feminist evaluation and research principles, and the reflective questions raised in the first section, are explored throughout the volume and well illustrated by the authors’ own experiences. There is an honesty in the volume about the realities of undertaking research and evaluation that places women at the center, particularly in places where equity and inclusion for women cannot be taken for granted.
Part 1
Sharon Brisolara’s opening chapter begins with an invitation to those new to feminist theory to engage with the field. Brisolara forewarns that such engagement is likely to challenge their existing world view, but she does this in a way that provokes curiosity rather than hesitation. The chapter provides an orientation to the breadth of feminist theory (feminist empiricism; standpoint theories; critical theories, poststructural theories, and postmodern theories; global and postcolonial theories; Black feminist, Chicana, indigenous, and race-based feminist theories; sex, sexuality, queer, and lesbian theories). The field has grown and diversified and, in some instances, theories do not use the label “feminist.” My thought was that the term itself might be too confining for those working at the intersections of multiple identities. Brisolara’s explanation is simpler (p.13): “…it took the work of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, and intersex (LGBTI) scholars and queer theory to illuminate and problematize the uncritical use of sex and gender in many inquiry traditions.” The stage is therefore set for big diversity of feminist thought, although the volume only goes some way toward achieving this. Little is said, for example, about indigenous peoples or LGBTI communities beyond this first chapter.
Having canvassed the theoretical landscape, Brisolara moves on to the epistemological (nature and scope of knowledge), ontological (nature of being, reality or existence), and methodological assumptions. Guba and Lincoln (1994, p. 197) argued that such a “set of basic beliefs…must be accepted simply on faith (however well-argued) [as] there is no way to establish their ultimate truthfulness.” The way these challenges are described by Brisolara is well argued: Individuals generate knowledge that reflects their culture, time, social milieu, and so on—their context or situation. This knowledge can take many forms (e.g., relational, emotional, intuitive), but even our combined understandings will only ever be partial. The importance of reflexivity and accountability are highlighted such that feminist scholars are committed to fully interrogating the assumptions and interpretations they bring to their work. Feminist methodologies frame an increased acceptance of a diversity of methods, with a focus on feminist-informed research and evaluation designs that represent the lived realities of participants. Brisolara writes, “…feminist methodologies [also] pay close attention to the ethical, policy, and political consequences of the practice of inquiry” (p. 20). She then presents eight feminist inquiry principles related to the nature of knowledge, the nature of inquiry, and social justice (e.g., “discrimination based on gender is systemic and structural,” p. 29).
I have gone into some depth about this first chapter because it sets the scene for the remainder of the book, even though other chapter authors bring their own feminist lens to their research or evaluation. Brisolara describes how an inquiry into feminist theory is “akin to gathering a glass of water from an open fire hydrant” (p. 3). What she has done in this first chapter is to spark an urge not only to gather a glass of water but to drink it quickly so that a second and then a third glass can be fetched and consumed.
The first part of the volume contains four further chapters. In Chapter 2, Sandra Mathison begins by teasing out the difference between research and evaluation, before adding feminist to each so that women’s lives are enquired about. Although both research and evaluation require examination of what is (i.e., factual inquiry), evaluation is also explicitly concerned with assessing merit, worth, or value. Research might not have this concern and therefore might not include an evaluative component. In my view, this distinction is easier to make in some contexts (e.g., education) than in others (e.g., health) but is a useful lead-in to a general overview of social science research and evaluation. I do not, however, agree that “stakeholder engagement…is unique to evaluation” (p. 51) or that we should still be talking about researchers “going native” (p. 47).
Elizabeth Whitmore (Chapter 3) writes that some power relations are maddeningly obvious (e.g., gender pay inequity), while in other respects, feminist evaluators are required to attend to “more subtle resistance” (p. 62). The adeptness to respond along this continuum and “put theory into practice” (p. 60) is described in five feminist evaluator roles: facilitator, educator, collaborator, technical advisor/methodologist, and activist/advocate. For example, a facilitator builds trust relationships, so that stakeholders’ ideas and perspectives can be shared. The role descriptions read like good practice with the added bonus of feminist assumptions, such as the “personal is political” (p. 69), and the importance of inquiring into whether differences in treatment/services and outcomes are driven by gender or sexuality.
Donna Mertens (Chapter 4) pulls feminist evaluation under the umbrella of her transformative paradigm and makes the paradigmatic approach to understanding feminist scholarship introduced by Sharon Brisolara even more explicit. In addition to exploring the epistemological, ontological, and methodological assumptions of the transformative paradigm, Mertens adds, and privileges, transformative axiological (nature of ethics) assumptions. These include “respect for cultural norms, furtherance of social justice and human rights, reciprocity, and recognition of community strengths” (p. 98). She poses provocative questions for evaluators who want to use a feminist lens and then challenges evaluators to consider the intersections of gender, disability, and race. More questions evaluators can ask are then informed by critical race theory and disability rights theory. In this way, theory and practice are firmly tied together.
The final chapter in this first section is Donna Podem’s description of feminist evaluation for nonfeminists. Podems highlights how, within the international development context, the truthfulness of feminism is seen as residing within the Western world, and she speculates that it’s the label, rather than the approach, that prompts a backlash against feminist research and evaluation. She compares and contrasts feminist and gender approaches to evaluation. “Feminist evaluation is often defined as a way of thinking about evaluation” (p. 120). Gender approaches to evaluation began with the assessment of human rights interventions designed for women in the developing world. The most captivating aspect of this chapter is Podems’s description of her experience as feminist evaluator of a nonprofit organization sited on the grounds of a mental institution in Botswana in the early 1990s. She guides us through the critical decisions she made in her role, describing challenges as well as breakthrough moments. This case example strengthens the theory–practice linkage and also showcases the need for feminist evaluators to be courageous.
This first section ends with a “first reflection” from the volume editors where they look back over key messages from these first chapters and tie these messages forward to the next section. They repeat this exercise at the end of the second section, with these reflections metaphorically holding the hand of readers and guiding them firmly, yet gently, onward through the book.
Part 2
The four chapters in Part 2 focus on feminist evaluation in practice. A real strength of this section is its window into the expansion of the places and spaces in the world where feminist evaluation is happening.
Sielbeck-Mathes and Selove (Chapter 6) succinctly describe the tasks of a feminist evaluator: understand the problem, understand the lived realities of women, and identify structural barriers (p. 163). Like other authors in the volume, their use of mixed methodologies informed their translation of “feminist values and evaluation findings into a language that is meaningful, compelling and actionable” (p. 151). Their case examples, of three related treatment programs for mental health and substance abuse in rural Tennessee, build on one another as they learn and clarify their feminist evaluation lens. These case examples ably demonstrate their identification of “invisible structures” (p. 163), as the evaluators sought to understand what was occurring from the standpoint of those who should be being served by a program.
Tristi Nicols (Chapter 7) introduces her feminist-ecological evaluation model, including a case example of the evaluation of Angola’s Democratic Transition Program. She calls upon Bronfenbrenner’s hierarchy of social ecology to describe how power asymmetries can exist within governance processes at individual, community, and collective levels. The goal of feminist evaluation is then to examine women’s contributions and outcomes at each of these levels and to do so through culturally competent evaluation practice so that women’s empowerment and equity can be facilitated.
Katherine Hay (Chapter 8) then moves us to another international development context in South Asia. Feminist evaluation is described as “nonmethodologically prescriptive” (p. 206) along similar lines to Brisolara’s assertion that “there are multiple ways of knowing” (p. 27). Hay outlines principles that can guide evaluation decision-making, including a focus on inequities, and adding value to those who are marginalized. Her evaluation work focuses on power relations, “the structural elements of inequities, justice, and politics” (p. 200). This shifts her feminist lens away from essentialist views of women as more virtuous or more deserving within development.
Silvia Salinas Mulder and Fabiola Amariles (Chapter 9) describe how gender and human rights approaches to evaluation in Latin America encourage nonfeminists to adopt feminist evaluation approaches. They emphasize the importance of involving stakeholders especially in settings that do not have a strong evaluation context. They also provide many tips for gathering stakeholders, giving them real opportunities to participate, and ensuring that evaluators “listen” for the meanings they wish to represent in their evaluation reporting (p. 244).
Part 3
The feminist agenda from earlier chapters continues in the final three chapters on feminist research in practice. These chapters blur the distinction between research and evaluation that Sandra Mathison highlighted in her chapter. I would describe these research projects as incorporating an evaluation function as well, since they respond to questions of What? So what? and Now what?
Denise Seigart (Chapter 10) describes herself as a feminist evaluator in the tradition of consciousness raising. This approach “values feminist perspectives and creates opportunities for increased dialogue and learning during the evaluation/research process” (p. 267). She brings this focus to school-based health care in the United States, Canada, and Australia, asking questions about the models of care provided to meet the health needs of children. A commitment to being culturally competent in these settings meant that Denise sought out stakeholders who had knowledge about underserved populations.
Alessandra Galie (Chapter 11) writes about her research with women farmers in Syria who were involved in a participatory plant breeding program. She stresses the importance of attention to gender whenever the food production-to-consumption chain involves men and women. Being gender blind can mean that programs pay scant attention to the needs of female farmers and thereby deny them access to technologies. Galie’s research highlighted the depth of women’s roles that was being overlooked in programmatic approaches, and how the plant breeding program could be more responsive to, and equitable for, women farmers.
Elaine Dietsch (Chapter 12) provides a synopsis of her cross-cultural study of sub-Saharan traditional midwives before exploring how it was influenced by feminist research ideology, despite not being explicitly identified by her at the time of the study as a feminist research project. As well as writing about the practices and kindness of traditional midwives to women in labor (e.g., washing them, providing them with evidence-informed midwifery), Dietsch also notes local as well as international structural impediments to the practice of traditional midwifery. As for not initially calling the study feminist research, Dietsch reflects that she had unquestioningly followed the trend of not describing research as feminist when feminist research had fallen out of academic fashion. She describes herself as wiser now.
The final reflection, as noted as the beginning of this review, is by Jennifer Greene. She describes our good fortune to be undertaking social research and evaluation in a time of pluralism. We are able to try on different philosophical traditions “for size and fit, assessing their look, functionality, and purpose” (p. 335). Her assessment of the size and fit of this volume then takes into account relevance, relationships, and responsibility. If I were to add “r” words to this list, they would be representation and reflexivity; that is, am I painting a good enough picture in my work and am I continuing to ask myself questions, hone my skills, and become a more finely tuned practitioner.
This volume has many key messages. For example, feminist evaluators and researchers make explicit whose knowledge is privileged and whose is silenced, they acknowledge and challenge structural inequalities and discrimination against women, and they often adopt action and advocacy roles. Accepting a feminist inquiry paradigm might therefore simply mean accepting that women have a right to equity no matter where in the world they reside. Even if it falls short of my idealized six-volume set that covers every diverse and intersecting corner of feminist evaluation and research, this volume is punching above its weight in terms of its contribution to a nuanced, diverse, and inclusive understanding of feminist research and evaluation theory and practice. It sets the scene for renewed understandings and reinvigorated conversations about how feminist evaluation and research might engage with peoples around the globe.