An important part of Feminist discourse relates to the position of public, private space and associated identity, conventionally research is seen to priorities public roles, for example the worker, while it ignores private roles like mother (Miller, 1998,). Ribbens and Edwards (1998) assert that there is a dilemma for feminist researchers, based upon the positional importance of the public/academic and private/personal. Hence, a distinct feature of Feminism is based upon studying previously unexplored areas, traditionally significant to women, such as the domestic / housework and family / household. This highlights the limited scope of conventional research in the private realms, seen to be significant in changing the power base of research, through gaining understanding of women’s everyday lives. For feminism to engage with women’s lives and issues new research methods and qualitative approaches needed to be developed, able to create real accounts of people’s lives (Letherby, 2003; Mauthner, 1989; Ramazanoglu, 2002). The feminist ideal is motivated to research areas long associated with women and gains credibility for the private sphere, often undervalued and overlooked, subsequently raising awareness of inequality (Letherby, 2003; Olesen, 2011; Ramazanoglu, 2002).
Dilemmas emerge when moving private and personal experiences into a public knowledge, in relation to sensitivity around morphing findings to fit accepted academic conventions.
84
Also there is tension when the need for confidentiality depersonalizes the personal. Ribbens and Edwards (1998:2) find difficulty in ‘remaining faithful’ to the personal and ‘intimate setting’ when converting the story shared with the respondent into permissible data. This can only be achieved through sensitivity, respect and authenticity. Letherby (2003: 30-1) explores the positional power in language development and use, labelling it as ‘man-made’, in its reflection of male power which dominates to make language appear biased. At times Feminists find limited language and terms for female expression and women’s issues, as language reflects dominant male culture and knowledge, meaning research concerning women’s lives can sometimes find restricted terminology. Miller (1998: 61) identifies this dilemma when researching the experiences of sisters, leading her to comment:
‘The public concept of research, as ordered, academic and rationale, does not fit with the disorder of private and /or personal
experiences’
This awareness of a power imbalance and the legacy of restricted expression for women meant feminist research is associated with developing different approaches, through innovative and flexible outlooks. Part of this redistribution is through appreciation of the participants’ own voices within the research process, which I will consider next.
3.11 Voice
An important part of Feminist discourse relates to valuing the ‘voice’, a term frequently utilized and having various associated meanings. For example, Hochschild (1998) associates the voice with the expression of emotion amongst participants. Others use the term to encapsulate experiences and attempting to empower women through their story being expressed in their own words. The legacy of Feminist research methodology views the
85
‘voice’ as not being previously heard, as knowledge, culture and history values the
masculine (Letherby, 2003; Mauthner and Doucet, 1989). Therefore, Feminist approaches work to make the research findings reflect women’s voices, which symbolizes the
importance of engaging with and recounting shared experiences and knowledge. Hence, the voice is considered within the research method in relation to how the researcher might hear and react to the voice (Miller, 1998; Ribbens and Edwards, 1998). Ribbens (1998: 60)
questioned her research approach and position to enable her to locate research methods which would ‘….enable the women’s voices to be distinct and discernible’. Mauthner and Doucet (1998) highlight the difficulty of interpretation and displaying findings sensitively especially when considering private spheres such as domestic life, whilst remaining voice focused. Alldred (1998) argues that the voice is a persuasive tool that can enhance engagement with issues, and ‘voice’ is seen to have power, giving a clear message which people are able to relate to. In this way the voice is seen to provide enhanced insights and understanding about women’s lives.
To facilitate voice fully, the whole research process should be scrutinised, in relation to methods, relational power and perception, but also with regards to the treatment of findings. There is an issue of power associated with interpreting the voice, as what the participants share, becomes the researcher’s findings, and here there is the potential for power to move towards the researcher. Skeggs, (1997) argues that while the research might aim to reflect the voice authentically, the writing up process and presenting information is a place where power can be eroded. Yet this is necessary in terms of fulfilment of academic conventions and other agendas. In my study, I used a flexible approach so participants could express themselves in their own terms. I also took time and care when listening and
86
transcribing, aiming to maintain the association between participants and findings (Mason, 1996).
3.12: Qualitative approach
The use of a qualitative approach provided a means to exploring women’s experiences and views about WLB and well-being, reflecting the theoretical approaches I have previously considered in this chapter. Flick (2006) describes qualitative findings as concrete cases examined temporally and locally, which have the ability to reflect the significance of respondents’ personal attributes and environment. Qualitative approaches accommodate the views of participants in a fluid way, as they are based upon a premise associated with interpersonal exchange (Marshall and Rossman, 2006). Henn et al. (2006: 36) linked qualitative methodology with Feminism, in that the approach values the participant as a whole person, rather than a ‘disembodied source of data’. This is critical in the generation of in-depth findings, which are able to show richness, associated with the experiences and personal perception of individuals. There are many methods within the range of qualitative approaches and I have chosen to use focus group and semi-structured interviews, which I will consider next.