Medios para la fabricación y el hormigonado

3.2.1  Adopting  a  feminist  approach  to  research    

In  line  with  the  ontological  assumptions  of  social  constructionism,  ‘social  phenomena  and  their   meanings’  are  understood  as  ‘continually  being  accomplished  by  social  actors’  (Bryman  2001:  

18)   within   my   study.   Viewing   the   social   world   in   these   terms   entails   rejecting   the   idea   that   ‘there   is   only   one   way   in   which   to   describe   it’;   instead,   the   researcher   and   the   research   participant   are   seen   as   ‘both   producers   of   accounts’,   and   ‘their   social   location   in   the   world   influences   how   they   come   to   experience   and   describe   it’   (Temple   &   Edwards   2002:   2).   A   constructionist   approach   therefore   provides   an   alternative   to   the   positivist   paradigm,   and   challenges  the  notion  that  social  research  must  ‘fulfil  the  explanatory  and  predictive  task’  of   the   natural   sciences   (Delanty   &   Strydom   2003:   19).   Critical   approaches   within   the   social   constructionist   paradigm   including   Marxism,   feminism   and   post-­‐colonialism   have   also   challenged   the   idea   that   ‘value-­‐freedom’   is   a   tenable   (or   desirable)   aim   for   social   research.     Instead,   these   ‘alternative’   approaches   highlight   the   centrality   of   power   in   research,   and   advocate  an  explicitly  political  approach  to  social  science  (Maguire  1987:  13).    

As   Allen   (2008)   has   pointed   out,   any   general   definition   of   feminism   would   be   controversial;   numerous   feminist   approaches   have   sought   to   revise,   appropriate   or   completely   reject   dominant   theories   from   the   ‘male-­‐stream’   canon   of   philosophical   thought.   Some   feminist   research   approaches   emphasize   the   importance   of   focusing   on   ‘issues   of   central   concern   to   girls  and  women’  (Reid  &  Frisby  2009:  97-­‐98).  However,  Cornwall  (2003)  has  cautioned  that  an   exclusive  focus  on  girls  and  women  has  the  potential  to  result  in  slippage  between  ‘gender’   and  ‘women’  in  which  gender  often  comes  to  mean  ‘ask  the  women  too’,  particularly  within   the   field   of   international   development   (Cornwall   2003:   1336-­‐8).   Mindful   of   this   critique,   I   adopt   a   ‘holistic   approach’   to   critical   gender   research   within   this   study,   which   ‘integrat[es]   work  on  masculinities  and  femininities’  (Nayak  &  Kehily  2008:  4).    

In   terms   of   epistemology,   my   feminist   approach   entails   paying   attention   to   the   role   of   the   researcher   within   knowledge   production,   since   ‘all   researchers   are   agents   […]   who   choose,   wittingly   or   not,   from   a   controversial   and   constraining   set   of   political   stances   and   epistemologies’  (Fine  1994:  16).  In  line  with  feminist  researchers’  emphasis  on  issues  of  power   within   knowledge   production   (Ramazanoğlu   &   Holland   2002;   Allen   2005),   the   process   of   knowledge  production  is  viewed  as  inevitably  value-­‐laden  and  influenced  by  power  relations,   particularly   during   interactions   between   myself   as   the   researcher   and   participants   as   the   ‘researched’.  In  these  interactions,  I  understand  power  relations  as  ‘inextricably  intertwined’,   rather   than   exclusively   held   by   the   researcher   over   participants   (Gaventa   &   Cornwall   2009:   173).    

A  central  issue  for  feminist  researchers  is  how  to  incorporate  their  values  into  their  research,   and   a   critical,   reflexive   approach   is   essential   to   this.     Critical   reflexivity   allows   feminist   researchers   to   address   the   tensions   between   a   political   commitment   to   ‘understand   and  

transform   unjust   gender   relations’,   and   the   epistemological   position   that   ‘the   realities   of   gendered   lives   cannot   be   accessed   directly’   (Allen   2005:   17).   Reflexivity   therefore   involves   ‘mak[ing]   explicit   the   power   relations   and   the   exercise   of   power   in   the   research   process’,   including  ‘varying  attempts  to  unpack  what  knowledge  is  contingent  upon,  how  the  researcher   is  socially  situated,  and  how  the  research  agenda/process  has  been  constituted’  (Ramazanoğlu   &  Holland  2002:  118).    

By  doing  this,  feminist  researchers  can  highlight  the  ways  in  which  the  knowledge  produced  by   their   research   ‘constitutes   a   partial   and   situated   account’   (Allen   2005:   17).   In   my   doctoral   study,  critical  reflexivity  includes  an  exploration  of  my  researcher  positionality,  or  my  ‘unique   mix  of  race,  class,  gender,  nationality,  sexuality  and  other  identities’  (Mullings  1999:  337),  the   ways   in   which   these   identities   may   have   intersected   with   those   of   my   participants,   and   the   implications   for   knowledge   produced   through   our   research   encounters   (P.   Srivastava   2006:   213).    Later  in  this  chapter  (3.3),  I  offer  critical  reflections  on  my  researcher  positionality  and   the  ways  in  which  I  ‘managed’  my  multiple  identities  during  the  research.  As  discussed  in  the   following   section,   reflecting   on   researcher   positionality   is   also   essential   when   adopting   a   narrative  analytical  framework.    

3.2.2  Narrative  analytical  framework      

Narratives   approaches   within   social   research   have   become   increasingly   popular,   and   increasingly  diverse,  over  the  past  thirty  years  (Watson  2012;  Squire,  Andrews  &  Tamboukou   2013;  Andrews  2014).  Storytelling  has  been  described  as  ‘a  cultural  practice  deeply  embedded   in   everyday   life’   (Dawson   1994:   22),   and   as   fundamentally   important   to   ‘the   organisation   of   human  experience  and  understanding  of  how  our  lives  are  lived’  (Watson  2012:  460).  My  own   interest  in  adopting  a  narrative  analytical  framework  lies  in  the  potential  to  ‘see  different  and   sometimes   contradictory   layers   of   meaning,   to   bring   them   into   useful   dialogue   with   each   other,   and   to   understand   more   about   individual   and   social   change’   (Squire,   Andrews   &   Tamboukou  2013:  2).  

My  narrative  analytical  framework  can  be  located  within  the  second-­‐wave  of  narrative  analysis   –   ‘narrative   in   context’,   rather   than   the   first-­‐wave   of   ‘narrative   as   text’   (Phoenix   2013).   Consistent  with  a  constructionist  ontological  position,  this  narrative  approach  does  not  assume   objectivity,   but   ‘privileges   positionality   and   subjectivity’   (Reissman   2001:   no   page   numbers).     This   entails   an   interest   in   multiple   truths   rather   than   ‘the   truth’   of   narratives;   as   Reissman   (2001)  notes,  ‘verification  of  the  “facts”  of  lives  is  less  salient  than  understanding  the  changing  

meaning  of  events  for  the  individuals  involved  –  and  how  these,  in  turn,  are  located  in  history   and  culture’  (2001:  no  page  numbers).    

When  considering  narrative  in  context,  I  am  particularly  interested  in  the  ‘small  stories’  told  by   research   participants,   or   ‘how   narrative   is   performed   and   accomplishes   particular   tasks,   including   identity’,   rather   than   ‘big   stories’,   which   use   (auto)biographical   stories   to   analyse   identity  using  cognitive  perspectives  (Phoenix  2013:  72).  A  focus  on  small  stories  entails  paying   close  textual  and  contextual  attention  to  how  people  tell  their  stories,  and  the  ‘doing’  of  the   narrative  (Phoenix  2013).  This  involves  considering  the  ‘performative  work’  done  by  narratives   in   interview   interactions   (Boddy   2014:   22);   as   Bruner   (1991)   has   noted,   stories   depend   on   ‘background  knowledge’  of  both  the  storyteller  and  the  listener,  and  ‘how  each  interprets  the   background  knowledge  of  the  other’  (1991:  10).  The  stories  told  in  interviews,  then,  are  based   ‘not  only  on  what  is  asked  in  an  interview,  but  on  a  judgement  of  what  needs  to  be  told  or   explained   or   justified’   (Boddy   2014:   22,   original   emphasis).   Research   participants,   as   storytellers,  also  ‘endeavour  to  manage  the  aspects  of  their  selves  and  lives  that  are  revealed   within  the  context  of  the  research  encounter’  (Boddy  2014:  22).    

These   issues   are   particularly   pertinent   in   the   telling   of   ‘sexual   stories’,   or   ‘narratives   of   the   intimate  life,  focused  especially  around  the  erotic,  the  gendered  and  the  relational’  which  are   ‘part  of  the  wider  discourses  and  ideologies  abroad  in  society’  (Plummer  1995:  6).  Inclusions   and  exclusions  within  sexual  stories  depend  upon  social  interactions  between  producers  and   consumers  of  the  stories  (Plummer  1995:  21);  it  is  therefore  important  to  consider  what  the   researcher  perceives  to  be  ‘askable’,  what  the  participant  perceives  to  be  ‘tellable’,  and  how   each  is  affected  by  their  mutual  ‘background  knowledge’.  In  turn,  the  sayable  and  unsayable   within  sexual  stories  offer  insights  into    ‘understandings  of  current  consensus  about  what  it  is   acceptable  to  say  and  do  in  […]  local  and  national  cultures’  (Phoenix  2013:  73)  in  relation  to   gender  and  sexuality.  

Storytelling  is  therefore  a  ‘collaborative  practice’  (Reissman  2001:  no  page  numbers)  between   tellers   and   listeners,   but   stories   also   exist   in   relation   to   ‘other   stories,   of   individuals   and   communities,  and  they  rely  upon  these  bonds  in  order  to  be  “tellable”’  (Andrews  2014:  87).   Bruner   (1991)   has   also   emphasized   the   importance   of   considering   ‘small   stories’   within   broader   narrative   contexts,   or   ‘canonical   narratives’   which   outline   normative   cultural   expectations.   Paying   attention   to   the   ways   in   which   canonical   or   cultural   narratives   are   represented  within  stories  can  ‘provide  insights  into  the  ways  in  which  narrators  use  culture  in   doing  narratives’  (Phoenix  2013:  75).  This  can  also  be  considered  in  terms  of  Andrews’  (2014)   ‘political  narratives’,  through  which    

individuals  reveal  how  they  position  themselves  within  communities  in  which   they  live,  to  whom  or  what  they  see  themselves  belonging  to/alienated  from,   how  they  construct  notions  of  power,  and  the  processes  by  which  such  power   is  negotiated.    

(Andrews  2014:  86-­‐87).  

According   to   Andrews   (2014),   discussion   of   political   narratives   inevitably   leads   to   an   examination   of   ‘the   relationship   between   macro   and   micro   narratives’,   or   ‘the   relationship   between  the  stories  of  individuals  and  the  stories  of  the  communities  in  which  they  live’  (2014:   86).   Andrews’   (2014)   definition   of   national   narratives   has   also   been   influential   when   developing   my   own   narrative   analytical   approach.   Andrews   (2014)   argues   that   questions   of   national  identity  are  invariably  linked  to  national  narratives,  through  which  people  ‘develop  a   sense   of   what   it   means   to   be   from   this   place   [and]   a   sense   of   belonging   and/or   alienation’   (Andrews  2014:  88).  This  is  highly  relevant  within  my  research,  for  example,  when  considering   how  participants  aligned  themselves  to  various  notions  of  ‘Indian’  or  ‘Western’  culture  through   the  stories  they  told.    

Plummer’s   (1995)   emphasis   on   the   social   processes   of   producing   and   consuming   (sexual)   stories  is  also  crucial  within  my  study,  as  it  encourages  attention  to  how  stories  are  produced   (i.e.   within   research   interactions),   how   they   are   heard   and   interpreted   (i.e.   within   research   interactions  and  the  analysis  process),  and  ‘the  social  role  that  stories  play’,  or  the  functions   that  stories  might  serve  in  the  lives  of  people  and  societies  (Plummer  1995:  25).  Through  my   narrative   analytical   approach,   I   therefore   examine   the   ‘small   stories’   told   within   research   encounters,   and   the   interrelations   between   these   micro-­‐narratives   and   macro-­‐narratives   of   gender,   sexuality   and   education   in   modern-­‐day   India.   In   the   following   section,   I   explore   my   researcher   positionality,   including   the   ways   in   which   research   participants   responded   to   me   (and  vice  versa),  and  reflect  on  the  ways  in  which  these  interactions  may  have  shaped  the  co-­‐ construction  of  micro-­‐narratives  within  the  research.