Upload
dora-carr
View
221
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOES FEMINISM COUNT? EXPLORING PRACTICE AND POSSIBILITIES
Rachel Cohen, Dept of Sociology, University of SurreyChristina Hughes, Dept of Sociology, University of Warwick
Starting point
Growing academic focus on why UK sociology, and indeed other social sciences in the UK, are so ‘qualitative’ (c.f. 2010 Benchmarking Review; Payne, Williams and Chamberlain (2004, 2005); Payne (2007); May (2005); Platt (2007))
Acknowledgement of the strength of Feminism and feminist theory within British Sociology (2010 Benchmarking Review).
Questions about the possible relationship between these two (Hughes and Cohen 2010).
Feminists and Quantitative Methods
Second wave feminists’ antipathy to quantitative methods as part of ‘malestream’ social science. Some of this was about surveys
The hierarchy of interviewing using closed-response questions – men forcing women into boxes
The lack of fit between questions and women’s interests Generally – absence of women’s ‘voices’
Some of it was about quantification per se In quantifying we objectify human experience Quantification enables the construction of scientific
‘truth’ and therefore reinforces gendered power relations Numbers are ‘hard’ and masculine (unlike ‘soft’ words)
Feminists and Quantitative Methods Critique of... The Product
The ends – a quantified social science that serves the purposes of male power and naturalises human relations
The Process A hierarchical undemocratic practice that masks
male privilege in neutrality.
Feminist research should be for women and with women
Feminists and Quantitative Methods
Developments Increasingly surveys ask questions relating to typically ‘female’ interests (for
example housework; sexuality; family relations; childcare) Methodological research on (and attention paid to) the survey interview
interaction. No longer treated as ‘neutral’ – although often not reflected upon in substantive work
Acknowledgement that ‘quasi’ quantification occurs throughout social research (‘most’ ‘many’ ‘all’ ‘some of’)
Increasing legitimacy (for example among funders) of qualitative research. In UK qualitative research is not the poor relation - but the norm in Sociology
for the last 40 years (Platt 2007). Today is little quantification (Payne et al 2004).
Formal ‘reconciliation’ around employing methods ‘most suitable’ for research question
BUT Ongoing invisibility of quants in feminist methods textbooks (Undugarra 2010) and, presumably, teaching QUESTION: Do feminists count?
State of current practice
Two studies of feminism and methods in sociology: Platt (2007) looked at impact of women’s movement
and increase in female academics on the topics covered and methods employed in mainstream UK sociology 1950s-2004. Found increasing focus on ‘female’ topics (family, gender,
etc). Quantitative articles have comprised a minority of both male
and female authors’ output throughout the whole period. Men are more likely to publish wholly theoretical articles.
Dunn and Waller (2000) look at ‘gender content’ articles in 15 North American sociology journals 1984-1993. Found ‘feminist-oriented’ studies more likely to be
qualitative than ‘gender-oriented’. Both types much more likely to be quantitative than
qualitative.
State of current practice
Study carried out with Christina Hughes and Richard Lampard, University of Warwick
Analysis of articles published in gender, women’s studies and feminist journals – space of interdisciplinary and international gender/feminist scholarship.
Journals selected from ISI citation index (‘Women’s Studies’ category). Top 17 cited journals (English language), plus 2 others, selected on basis of our knowledge of them.
Analysis of every full article in first and last issue of 2007 (unless ‘Special Issue’, then neigbouring issue chosen).
N = 256 articles from 19 journals.
See Cohen, Hughes and Lampard in Sociology (2011) ‘The methodological impact of feminism: A troubling issue for Sociology?’
Overview of methodological approaches in Women’s Studies articles.
Methodological Approach
Theoretical/secondary sources (only) 31 12%
Qualitative 96 38%
Quantitative 109 43%
Mixed: Qualitative & Quantitative 20 8%
Specification of the quantitative analyses:
Descriptive 126 98%
Bivariate 114 89%
Inferential 108 85%
Multivariate 97 76%
Feminist Engagement and Methodological Choice
Mentions of Feminism/ist
Theoretical/
Secondary
Qualitative Only
Quant only
Mixed (Qual and
Quant)
N
0 5 13 72 9 100(101)
1-2 7 43 39 11 100(44)
3-10 7 62 24 7 100(45)
11-25 21 67 9 3 100(33)
26+ 39 42 15 3 100(33)
Feminist self-position
Theoretical/
Secondary
Qualitative Only
Quant only
Mixed (Qual and
Quant)
N
Yes 25 59 12 4 100(68)
No 7 30 54 9 100(188)
Methodological justification and methodological choice
Methodological justification
Theoretical/
Secondary
Qualitative Only
Quant only
Mixed (Qual and
Quant)
N
Feminist 15 70 7 7 100(48)
Transformative 15 28 48 10 100(23)
Other/Technical 12 41 38 9 100(45)
None 9 28 59 4 100(94)
Geographic base and methodological choice
National base of first author
Not Quantitative
Quantitative
N
US 30% 70% 143
UK 86% 14% 28
Australia 67% 33% 18
Canada 73% 27% 22
Europe 74% 26% 27
Other 65% 35% 17
Unidentifiable 100% 0% 1
All 50% 50% 256
Logistic Regression of quantitative methods use (summary)
The following increased the likelihood of quantitative methods being used (irrespective of whether any other method also used): US author affiliation Multiple co-authors Publishing in a journal with ‘women’ identification Absence of methodological justification
The following decreased the likelihood of quantitative methods being used: Single author Publishing in a journal with ‘feminist’, ‘women studies’ or ‘gender’
identification (as opposed to ‘women’) Engagement with feminist literature (note: this accounted for all of
an initial effect of explicit feminist positioning and all of the author-sex effect)
Either feminist, transformative or ‘other’ methodological justification
Do feminists count?
Published articles on women, gender and feminism do employ quantitative methods.
Articles with transformative goals do employ quantitative methods.
But those published in explicitly feminist/gender studies journals that engage most thoroughly with the feminist literature rarely do.
Moreover, even when quantitative methods are used by feminists, explicitly ‘feminist’ methodological justifications for using quantitative methods are not given.
[Geography and discipline matter...]
A feminist quantitative methods
Acceptance that sometimes ‘counts’ are socially and politically important. the importance of finding out ‘facts’ about the relative position of
men/women (for example labour force participation; health outcomes) for transformative campaigns.
concerns with making measurable/counting women’s contributions that have previously been uncounted – for example via measures of GDP that take into account unpaid labour/reproduction/depletion (c.f. Hoskyns and Rai 2007).
Technical possibilities of quantitative methods for some research, e.g. intersectionality (McCall 2005)
But tactical acceptance of some counting remains in tension with hesitancy of many feminists to do number. Why?
Three ongoing issues for feminist quantitative approaches
Issue 1: Reflexivity
Feminist methods insist on the non-neutrality and presence of the researcher. As such reflexivity has been central to feminist research (Lovell 2000)
Quantitative methods are employed with little reflexive consideration of methods. Why? Constrained by word limit? Requirement to provide technical information (operationalisation/sample etc)? Social norms – about reliability/’truth’?
An exception: One study by Ryan and Golden (2006) includes a reflexive consideration of quantitative methods from a feminist standpoint. But this is unusual. Moreover this reflection on methods is published separately from their quantitative analysis – as a stand alone methodological ‘think piece’.
Therefore, central issue in producing a quantitative methods informed by feminist understandings: making space for/normalising reflective consideration within quantitative publications
Note: this risks destabilising the front of ‘scientific reliability’
Issue 2: sex/gender
Central to the feminist framing of gender is the de-linking of biological difference and gender (denaturalising of gender).
Most quantitative analysis continues to treat ‘gender’ as an external ‘independent variable’ scored as a binary (0/1), constant across time, constant within cases. This is biological ‘sex’ in all but name.
This enables the exposure of social differences between men and women (in labour participation, poverty, education etc) transformative change. But it reifies sex/gender differences.
Is there a way that quantitative analysis can be used to explore the social construction of gender? Note – similar issues arise in exploring
‘race’/’ethnicity’
Issue 2: sex/gender
Inclusion of temporality – exploring the moments at which sex differences become socially significant (as gender). When does it matter that I am a woman?
Attempts to show the fluctuating relevance of gender over the life-course
Paid work
Routine housework
Care for family members and other domestic work
Sleep and rest
Consumption and leisure
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Single (n=967) Acquire partner,no child (n=967)
Stay partnered, nochild (n=1790)
Stay partnered,acquire child
(n=192)
Stay partnered,keep child(n=1102)
Stay partnered,child leaves/hasgrown up (n=34)
Men’s time-use (minutes per day) by family change (From Gershuny 2004 reprinted in Scott 2010)18
Paid work
Routine housework
Care for family members and other domestic work
Sleep and rest
Consumption and leisure
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Single (n=1102) Acquire partner,no child (n=1102)
Stay partnered, nochild (n=1928)
Stay partnered,acquire child
(n=227)
Stay partnered,keep child(n=1644)
Stay partnered,child leaves/hasgrown up (n=41)
Women’s time-use (minutes per day) by family change (From Gershuny 2004 reprinted in Scott 2010)
19
Issue 2: sex/gender
Inclusion of temporality – exploring the moments at which sex differences become socially significant (as gender). When does it matter that I am a woman?
Attempts to show the fluctuating relevance of gender over the life-course
These still presume the location of binary gendered identities – men and women.
Is there a way to make gender a more complex ‘outcome’ (or achievement)? Can we study the process of gendering?
How can we ‘measure’ gender without asking respondents what their ‘sex’ is?
Issue 3: statistical isolates
Feminism (like other transformative social science) has focused on inter-subjectivity and relational identities/behaviours.
Most quantitative statistical analysis involves the methodological treatment of the population as an aggregate of disconnected individuals.
Possibilities from Household level data Modelling of context: time-series and event-history
analysis, multilevel modelling New non-statistical forms of data analysis (such as
network analysis)