Procedimiento de la Investigación

The purpose of this research is to induce change. 'Good' research according to Klein (1983:80), "aims to be instrumental in improving women's lives one way or another". While political analysis has always underpinned the feminist agenda, Reinharz (1992) notes, "[t]o the extent that feminism is change-oriented by definition, all feminist research has action components" (1 96). On the other hand, the need to have an end result such as a support group is not the objective of feminist research unless indicated by the participants. Action for change can take many forms some of which may never be known to the researcher. It may be only on a personal level, it may be as part of some other action or it may not take place until much later on. To expect that some group action will take place subverts the process of allowing the research to develop a direction reflecting the participants' agenda rather than that of the researchers. Providing an open process as described which allows those actions to naturally evolve is more appropriate. Slavish adherence to any outcome or process be that a support group or focus groups is more damaging and may actually block a development that is innovative. Without a doctrinaire adherence to this principle I have encouraged this aspect of the research as an important element where appropriate. One woman in the research advertised for women who were interested in housing issues as a means of setting up a support group and sought assistance from the West Auckland Women's Centre to achieve this.

Klein (1983) states that feminist research is research _"for women rather than _on women" (90) but a crucial element is that the researcher needs to talk about the process of doing the research. Questions of interest are why a particular topic was chosen and what happened while the research was being carried out. This transparency is an important characteristic of feminist research methodology both for the women interviewed and in terms of demystifying and evaluating the research process; the 'how' is as important as the 'why'. Harding (1991) quotes Epstein who states that, "the best feminist analysis ... insists that the inquirer her/himself be placed in the same critical place as the overt subject matter, thereby recovering the entire research process for scrutiny in the results of research" (98) .

This point was illustrated in my research where another researcher upon finding that I had interviewed a particular woman, whom we were separately talking to about different issues, asked the woman if she could have access to her interview. The woman asked me and I replied that it was her information and she could do with it as she liked. She subsequently gave a copy of her interview to the other researcher. Bryson notes, " ... much research is written up as an entirely smooth process controlled by a researcher who knows what he or she is about"(1979:100) rather than the sometimes, " ... sloppy and ad hoc methods they used to try and save some of their research projects from complete and abysmal failure" (Hammond in Bryson:1979:100). Our projects are important to us and it is easy to be blind to or not talk about aspects of our research which need examination.

It is important to be aware of the danger, that in order to validate qualitative methods, the methodology may acquire a pseudo-scientific aspect which would undermine the very characteristics which make it useful (Denzin:1989). It might be inferred that qualitative methods are not really 'okay' and are merely a means of responding to positivist critique favouring quantitative methods, leading a researcher to use a number of sources in a quantitative fashion to make qualitative data acceptable. Edwards and Ribbens (1998) comment:

Qualitative research almost inevitably appears 'unconvincing' within this relationship because dominant understandings of concepts of 'validity', 'reliability' and 'representative' are posed within a numerical rather than a process framework. In contrast, researchers working within a quantitative framework rarely have to explain the underlying epistemological basis of their work within the terms of qualitative research (4) .

The usefulness of a quantitative approach rests on the questions asked in gathering the data, the quality of the data gathering process and recognising that it is only one of a number of methods of equal validity. The debate over these methods has made for a polarisation which I see as unnecessary and unhelpful. Quantitative methods are not inherently wrong, rather it is the way they are used which makes the difference. "The emphasis here is on using methods which can best answer particular research questions, but always using them in ways which are consistent with broad feminist goals and ideology" (Epstein quoted in Harding:199 1 :91). A complementary approach using both quantitative and qualitative information, while not undermining the usefulness of purely qualitative or quantitative analysis,

is one method which can combine the best of both. Therefore quantitative methods can provide the data from which to make generalised statements and qualitative methods provide the detail and content of people's lives. I have made extensive use of what statistical data is available as a means of enhancing the qualitative data in a way which builds a larger and more comprehensive picture of housing issues and to provide the context for the women's experiences and analysis of housing policies. Having experienced the antagonistic approach towards qualitative research by the Minister of Housing, McCully (1994) in an address given at a Housing Conference, I have considerable concerns as to how information is used by policymakers (Bryson:1979, Fonow and Cook:1991) and am aware that rigorous questions need to be asked of research; what for, who for and why?