This article was downloaded by: [University of Tasmania]On: 13 October 2014, At: 08:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Journal of Political SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cajp20

Gender and the Australian Parliament:Putting the Political Scientist into thePictureMary Crawford aa Queensland University of TechnologyPublished online: 08 May 2009.

To cite this article: Mary Crawford (2009) Gender and the Australian Parliament: Putting thePolitical Scientist into the Picture, Australian Journal of Political Science, 44:2, 295-307, DOI:10.1080/10361140902862800

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10361140902862800

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Gender and the Australian Parliament: Putting

the Political Scientist into the Picture

MARY CRAWFORD

Queensland University of Technology

This paper draws on a study of gender and politics in the Australianparliament in order to make a contribution to methodological debates infeminist political science. The paper begins by outlining the differentdimensions of feminist political science methodology that have beenidentified in the literature. According to this literature five key principlescan be seen to constitute feminist approaches to political science. These are:a focus on gender, a deconstruction of the public/private divide, giving voiceto women, using research as a basis for transformation, and using reflexivityto critique researcher positionality. The next part of the paper focuses morespecifically on reflexivity tracing arguments about its definition, usefulnessand the criticisms it has attracted from researchers. Following this, I explorehow my background as a member of the Australian House of Representa-tives from 1987 to 1996 provided an important academic resource in mydoctoral study of gender and politics in the national parliament. Throughthis process I highlight the value of a reflexive approach to research.

Introduction

Given the hegemony of positivism across political science it is not surprisingthat commentators have noted the dominance of this approach in the sub-fieldof scholarship known as ‘women and politics’ (Childs 2001; Sawer 2002;Lovenduski and Norris 2003). Like other positivist work, studies of women andpolitics have thus typically been predicated on the view that the scholardocuments, critiques and analyses a phenomenon in a passive, objective andunbiased manner. The prevailing view is that ‘good’ research relies on anacademic being distanced from a subject. As Marsh and Savigny (2004, 158)note, this type of approach does not ‘acknowledge the subjectivity of theobserver.’In this paper I challenge this orthodoxy through reporting on a doctoral

study of gender and the Australian federal parliament. I argue that myown background as a female member of federal parliament (House of

Mary Crawford is currently a PhD student at QUT working on ‘Gender and the AustralianParliament.’ She was formerly the Federal Member for Forde (1987–96) and is drawing on thisexperience in her research.

Australian Journal of Political Science,Vol. 44, No. 2, June 2009, pp. 295–307

ISSN 1036-1146 print; ISSN 1363-030X online/09/020295-13 � 2009 Australian Political Studies Association

DOI: 10.1080/10361140902862800

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

08:

35 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Representatives 1987–96) was relevant to my research in terms of access, theframing of the research questions and data gathering and analyses. I explore theways in which this ‘intellectual autobiography’ (Stanley and Wise 1990, 47)situated me as an insider while at other times it rendered me an outsider.Further, I examine how other social locations beyond that of former politicianalso mediated my positionality as insider/outsider in the research.The paper begins with a discussion of feminist political science research

methodology. Following this, a more detailed examination of reflexivity inresearch is presented, including a discussion of the insider-outsider debate. Inthe next sections of the paper I turn to my own research project investigatinggender in the Australian parliament. Some background to the study is providedbefore I explore the ways in which access, the development of researchquestions and the collecting and analyses of data were influenced by my variousidentities and the shifting insider/outsider terrain.

Feminist Political Science Research

Writers have typically defined what they mean by feminist methodology inpolitical science research by suggesting general ‘themes,’ ‘frameworks,’‘principles’ or ‘guidelines’ (see Kathlene 1990; Carroll and Zerillli 1993; Kenney1996; Vickers 1997; Hawkesworth 1998; Chappell 2000; Childs 2000; Ross2000; Edwards and McAllister 2002; Dietz 2003; Mackay 2004; Sawer 2004;Beckwith 2005; Carroll 2005; Childs and Krook 2006; Galligan and Clavero2008; Kantola 2008). While some individuals give emphasis to contrastingdimensions of feminist research over others and some describe similardimensions in different ways, there is also a commonality across the literature.Thus, an analysis of the literature reveals the importance of five key guidelinesfor feminist research in political science. These are: placing gender at the centreof the research project; giving emphasis to women’s voice; challenging thepublic/private divide; using research to transform society and taking a reflexiveapproach to positionality.The first of the features identified as critical to feminist political science

methodology is a focus on gender. As Lovenduski (1998, 333) has argued at thecore of feminist research in political science is a commitment to place genderfirmly at the centre of any enquiry. Indeed, this is a tenet of feminist research onwhich all commentators agree (e.g. Kathlene 1990; Carroll and Zerilli 1993;Hopkins 1993; Halcli and Reger 1997). In enunciating the importance of a focuson gender feminist political commentators have posited that there needs to be afocus on men and masculinities as well as women and femininities. Thesewriters have also drawn attention to the fact that a focus on gender is notnecessarily solely about studying men and women as gendered beings but aboutstudying parliamentary and political organisations, processes, discourses andpractices as gendered (e.g. Hawkesworth 1998; Norris 1998; Chappell 2000;Childs 2000; Edwards and McAllister 2002).A second principle of feminist political science research identified as

important by writers is to deconstruct the public/private divide. Scholars haveargued that the discipline has traditionally reified the public sphere as the onlyarena in which ‘real’ politics and research can occur and that normativedefinitions of what constitutes politics need to be critiqued (Arscott and

296 M. CRAWFORD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

08:

35 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Tremblay 1999; Ross 2000; Dietz 2003; Hawkesworth 2005; Galligan andClavero 2008). While recognising that this confronts the very basis of thediscipline and is a threat to the ‘status quo’ feminist political scienceresearchers claim that political science must take into account the reality ofwomen’s lives and their interaction with the political arena (Hopkins 1993;Mackay 2004).Associated with the above principle is the third of the dimensions of

feminist political science methodology identified as critical in the literature,that is the need to give voice to women. The view is that women have beenrendered invisible by the male dominated world of politics and politicalscience and male definitions of politics (Ross 2000; Beckwith 2001; Sawer2004; Childs and Krook 2006). Arguments for ‘giving voice’ to women inpolitics have led some feminist writers to advocate the benefits of qualitativemethodologies, particularly interviewing suggesting that less positivisticmethods may open up opportunities for the experiences and perspectivesof women to be heard (Lovenduski 1998; Norris 2002; Tremblay 2003;Sawer 2004).The fourth principle of feminist political science research that is commonly

raised in the literature is that scholarship should be used as a tool for activismand change. That is, to challenge ‘what is’ and instead work towards ‘whatought to be’ (Heller 1991, 343). Some scholars contend that because feministpolitical science research transgresses boundaries and criticises the status quo inwhat and how it takes as its focus it is inherently transformative (Acklesberg2005). Others suggest that feminists need to challenge ‘the dichotomy betweenactivism and the academy’ through ensuring their work is relevant andaccessible to a broad audience (Carroll 2005, 328). Randall (1997, 9) writes, forexample, that feminist political science research needs to be ‘for women’ notsimply on or about women.A final tenet of feminist political science research that is highlighted in the

literature is the need for researchers to be reflexive about their positionality. AsCarroll and Zerilli (1993, 59) have asserted, feminist scholars are ‘very wary ofclaims to objectivity, value-free research and universal truth.’ They argueinstead, like Sapiro (1998, 71), that ‘no research and no set of researchprocedures can be value-free.’ In repudiating the view that ‘good’ politicalscience is reliant upon the ‘disinterestedness and unconnectedness of theobserver’ (Nelson 1989, 22) feminist scholars have sought to bring theresearcher into the process of knowledge production through ‘reflexivity.’ Indoing so they have engaged with the rich and broader literature on reflexivity inqualitative research. It is to this literature that I now turn.

Subjectivity, Positionality and Reflexivity in Research

Giddens (1991, 1994) has argued that contemporary society is characterised bythe capacity of individuals to reflect on the self and regard the self as an identitythat can be changed, adapted or constructed. Like a host of other writers (e.g.Beck 1992, 1994; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002) he argues that ‘self-identity isnot a distinctive trait, nor even a collection of traits, possessed by theindividual. It is the self as reflexively understood by the person in terms of heror his biography.’ Thus, instead of the self as a singular entity that has come to

GENDER AND THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT 297

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

08:

35 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

be via social structures or traditions the self is ‘fragmented into differingdiscourses’ through the processes of reflexivity (Beck 1994, 8). Giddens’ (1991,1994) notion of reflexivity has been criticised on a number of grounds includingits failure to fully account for the contradictions and present distributions ofeconomic, political and cultural power and the impact of power differentials onthe individual’s world (e.g. Adams 2003; Bagguley 2003).Despite these criticisms, Giddens’ (1991, 1994) notion of reflexivity finds

resonance in the qualitative methodological literature as reflexivity has beenseen as central to good research process and practice (Guba and Lincoln 2005).In the qualitative methodological literature the term has often been described asdifficult to define (e.g. Foley 2002; Cunliffe 2003), and, unfortunately, used byresearchers without it being defined, or alternatively, used by researchers anddefined in different ways (Pillow 2003). In this respect England’s (1994, 82)definition is helpful as she explains that reflexivity is ‘the self-criticalsympathetic introspection and self-conscious analytical scrutiny of the self asresearcher.’ Thus, rather than making claims to truth, reflexive researchers areexplicit about their subjectivities and the way in which these influence theirrelationship with the field. Thus, reflexivity makes explicit our own position,knowledge, experience and predispositions and interrogates these and the wayin which they may have influenced the research. Illuminating this definitionfurther is Grace’s (1998, 204) use of the metaphor of the ‘backstage’ of researchand the use of reflexivity to expose what occurs backstage. This includes ‘thestruggles over project selection and formulation, difficulties with access to thefield, problems of methodology and analysis, change of direction, ethicaldilemmas, constraints upon writing up and publishing . . . and the critical intentof the wider research project.’ England’s (1994) definition is also useful as shedistinguishes between mere description and critical analysis. This is necessarygiven that, as Foley (2002, 475) notes, reflexivity poorly conceptualised andarticulated can ‘degenerate into self-serving, narcissistic, heroic portrayals ofresearch and of the researcher.’Today there is an extensive feminist literature on the subjects of reflexivity

and researcher positionality (e.g. Puwar 1997; Pini 2004; Taber 2005). Acrossthis literature a central preoccupation is, as Gill Valentine (2002, 117) argues,with the notions of insider or outsider. For example, there is the view thathaving prior knowledge or experience of a subject—that is, being an insider—may enable a feminist researcher to develop closer connections withparticipants and to produce a more accurate description of the phenomenathey are studying. Illustrative of this is Oakley’s (1981, 57) early and much citedarticle which posits that as a woman researcher interviewing women she was‘inside the culture.’ She argued that this insider status facilitated rapport,intimacy and empathy between herself and participants. Quite a different viewhas been proffered, however, in other feminist research (e.g. Thompson 2001).This is the view succinctly encapsulated by Riessman (1987, 172) as ‘gender isnot enough.’ That is, other differences besides that of gender such as class andrace may mediate the research relationship and render a female researcher anoutsider even when studying women (e.g. Bhavnani 1993; Skeggs 1994; Dycket al. 1995).The insider–outsider debate and the issue of the multiple positionalities of

the researcher and researched are explored by political scientists Nirmal

298 M. CRAWFORD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

08:

35 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Puwar (1997) and Karen Ross (2001) in reflexive examinations of theirinterviews with women politicians. Puwar (1997) contextualises her account ofinterviewing women MPs in the House of Commons by reference to theliterature on the interviewing of elites as well as interviewing in gender studies.She argues that at times her experience was akin to Oakley’s (1981) with‘cosy, friendly and sisterly’ exchanges of information (Puwar 1997, 1).However, at other times she felt like an outsider as interviewees treated herwith mistrust, arrogance or aloofness. These exchanges, she notes, mirrorthose described in the literature on elite interviewing. Ross’s (2001)description of interviewing Australian women MPs is also contradictory andcomplex. Her particular concern is interviewing conservative womenpoliticians when she feels a lack of sympathy for their politics. In her veryhonest account she explains that she accentuated particular subject positionsand obscured others (for example, ‘feminist’ and ‘socialist’) in order to buildrapport with participants.Like Puwar (1997) and Ross (2001) my aim in this paper is to ‘actively seek

out my subjectivity’ as a former Labor MP in order to highlight its ‘enablingand disabling’ potential (Peshkin 1988, 18). In undertaking such an endeavour Idemonstrate the fluid and shifting nature of the identities of research insiderand outsider. In order to situate this reflexive exploration I now provide a briefoverview of the research study and methodology.

Background to the Study

The purpose of the study was to investigate gender and the practices, discoursesand processes of the Australian parliament. In total, 28 interviews wereundertaken with 13 male and 15 female politicians in 2006. The sample wasselected to ensure representation from both houses and across age, length oftime in parliament, political party and all Australian states (Table 1). Theseinterviews took place in MPs’ Parliamentary offices during sitting times and intheir electorate offices over one month. The time of the interview was dictatedby the availability of the MP as well as that of the researcher. Semi-structuredinterviews are particularly recommended for elite interviews as they have theflexibility to allow participants to expand or to raise unanticipated issues (Berry2002; Stephens 2007). Interviews covered background, pre-selection, campaign-ing, parliamentary work, work-life balance and committee involvement.Participants were also asked specific questions about impediments to women’sparliamentary involvement.I came to this research as a former female ALP member of the government

(Forde 1987–96) and I therefore inhabited an identity quite different fromPuwar (1997) and Ross (2001). As the next sections of the paper reveal, thisidentity was critical at different times during the research rendering me bothinsider and outsider in relation to access, the framing of questions and thecollection and analyses of data.

Access

Researchers who have studied elite populations, and particularly, the elitegroup who are parliamentarians, have emphasised that one of the key

GENDER AND THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT 299

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

08:

35 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

challenges they face is access (e.g. Atkinson et al. 2003; Smith 2005). As aformer politician who had occupied a marginal seat I had an intimateunderstanding of the workload demands of MPs and knew that most MPsprioritise activities associated with their own electorates. I imagined thereforethat some MPs would not be able to participate in the research simply becauseof time constraints. However, I thought for Coalition members it would be myLabor party association that would primarily deter involvement in the study.As recommended in the literature on elite interviewing I approached

participants with an e-mail and follow-up phone call (Peabody et al. 1990). Ihad been a colleague of many government and opposition members in the 2006parliament and so began developing a sample through contacting some of them.Through these Coalition and government MPs I then made contact with newerparliamentary representatives. Through the process of negotiating access I wasgreatly assisted by the fact that a female Labor senator organised an office forme in Parliament House. This was, of course, a direct result of my insiderstatus. Having an office meant I was able to organise independent access to theParliament every day and could move freely within the usually restricted partsof the House. This, together with the fact that I was already familiar with the

Table 1. Sampling Characteristics by Gender

Male Female

HouseReps 10 7Senate 3 8

PartyNational/Liberal Coalition 6 5Labor 7 10

Marital statusMarried 11 9Single 2 6

ChildrenYes 13 11No 0 4

Representation by statesQLD 3 4NSW 6 4VIC 1 4WA 1 0SA 0 1TAS 1 1ACT 1 0NT 0 1

Time in Parliament0–5 years 3 85–10 years 3 610–15 years 2 1þ15 years 5 0

Age30–40 years 3 741–50 years 5 651–60 years 3 161þ years 2 1

300 M. CRAWFORD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

08:

35 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

environment of the House, meant that I did not experience any sense ofintimidation as described by Ross (2000) and Puwar (1997). An office space wasalso advantageous as I could telephone staff within the building and not beignored because I was on an outside line as well as be called if an MP had timesuddenly become available.Being able to personally ask people for interviews meant that a refusal needed

to be explained. This would be most uncommon in the relationship between‘elites’ and a researcher (see Hertz and Imber 1995). Only three of the 31participants I approached refused to be interviewed. One female Liberal MPexpressed the view that the subject had been ‘done to death’ and chastised mefor not undertaking what she considered to be more worthwhile research.Puwar (1997) reports on similar responses from some British MPs sheapproached for interviews and notes the anomaly that, despite this view, thereis actually very little published work on women politicians. While someexcellent work does exist on Australian women politicians (e.g. Simms 1993;Sawer 2002; Tremblay 2003), there is still far more to be investigated. However,as Puwar (1997) points out, politicians do not distinguish between requests forinterviews from those undertaking scholarly research and those involved inother pursuits (e.g. school students, undergraduates).Ironically, two further refusals came from males in the Australian Labor

party. The first of these was a former parliamentary colleague. He contacted mepersonally to explain that he had been so badly misquoted and misrepresentedin an earlier thesis that he had made himself unavailable for any furtherresearch interviews. He assured me that he would assist in any other universitywork I was doing but felt unable to participate in this study. The response fromthe second male politician who refused to be interviewed demonstrates theparadoxical nature of being an insider. In this instance, my insider status was animpediment rather than an asset in terms of access. This male Labor MP whowas also a former parliamentary colleague conveyed a message via a staffmember informing me of his unwillingness to participate. It was made clear thathis decision not to be involved in the study was because during my time inparliament I was elected to a Chair of a Committee over him. I had wronglyanticipated that our shared political allegiances would have resulted in himviewing me favourably despite a (now very distant) conflict. However, this wasnot the case.

Development of Research Questions

My insider status also meant I had a degree of pre-existing knowledge todevelop interview questions. Like Hunter (1995, 163) I found the introductorystatement ‘when I was here’ most effective in eliciting information that wouldnot necessarily have been proffered. More generally, I also drew on my livedeveryday knowledge of how parliament works to formulate questions. Forexample, my background means I have an intimate understanding of thedifference between the demands on a Senator and a Member of the House ofRepresentatives and their interactions with the parliamentary process. Indeed,this was commented on by a number of Senators.While my insider status assisted the generation and delivery of research

questions it also raised problems in questioning. This is because with insider

GENDER AND THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT 301

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

08:

35 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

accounts participants may take for granted a researcher’s knowledge andunderstanding. They may think some questions are not necessary because aresearcher would or should know ‘the answer’ (Farnsworth 1996; Einagel 2002).This was illustrated to me as I sought to understand more about the issue of thefamily unfriendly practices of the parliament, which so many participants citedas a critical barrier for women. On many occasions, however, participants,particularly women, would state this as an issue and not offer any elaborationor explanation requiring me to rely on numerous probes such as ‘Can you tellme more about that? Or ‘Can you give me an illustration of that?’ Theyassumed that, as a former woman politician, I had an intimate knowledge andunderstanding of the problem of work-family balance. However, as aparliamentarian I was single with no children and was therefore able to devotemy whole time to working for the electorate. I did not have a sharedunderstanding of how the late sitting hours of Parliament impact on a family.What was highlighted in these exchanges is that the shared identity of ‘women’or indeed ‘woman politician’ is fractured by multiple differences includingmarital status and the presence of children.In developing questions for the interviews I not only had to guard against

participants’ taking my knowledge for granted, but also guard against takingmy own knowledge for granted. As Robertson (2002, 788) argues, one of theproblems of what he labels as ‘writing as a (name of the category)’ is that it mayrender one impervious to new experiences and encounters in the field (see alsoFetterman 1989; Bolak 1997). During the research I was therefore highlyconscious of the need to be open to what was ‘different’ or ‘new’ and askedsome specific questions about changes, developments or shifts in behaviours,practices and discourses in the parliament. This need to be open to differencewas also paramount in the processes of data collection and analyses. How mypositionality influenced these phases of the research is examined in more detailbelow.

Data Collection and Analysis

Just as insider status can be both beneficial and problematic in terms of accessto the field, so too can this status have dual affects in terms of the quality ofdata gathered and the quality of the data analysis. Desmond (2004, 265) hasasserted that ‘with elite interviewees the relationship between interviewer andinterviewee is inevitably asymmetrical.’ This ‘inevitability’ however, does notaccount for situations such as mine in which an interviewee is a former memberof the ‘elite’ being interviewed. Participants conveyed the view that they weretalking to someone with a shared experience (and to a certain extent a sharedstatus) through comments such as ‘well you would know what it is like’ and ‘Idon’t need to tell you.’ Most of the older women MPs and some of my formerLabor male colleagues welcomed me warmly with a kiss and a hug when Iarrived for the interview and were keen to find out about my post-parliamentary life. I was also introduced to staff and given tours throughoffices as well as shown photographs of family. This welcoming and the factthat I was familiar with the layout of the offices as well as the broaderparliamentary environment meant I began the interviews feeling comfortableand relaxed. Indeed, I experienced none of the sense of being overwhelmed or

302 M. CRAWFORD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

08:

35 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

distracted by the accoutrements of power that have been said to impederesearch on elites (e.g. Hunter 1995; Useem 1995).Interviews were often interrupted by the constant ringing of the division bells

as described by Ross (2001). However, unlike Ross (2001) I did not interpretthis type of interruption as an exercise in power but rather understood that thiswas the ‘real’ work of politicians and that my research project would not winthem any votes either in the Chamber or in the wider electorate. I was alsoaware of the pressures on the time of politicians particularly those who heldmarginal seats in the House of Representatives, many of whom were women aswell as the constantly changing daily schedule of politicians. In contrast to theexperiences of Puwar (1997) and Ross (2001), I was not kept waiting ordismissed and any changes to timetables were made in consultation with me,nobody answered a phone during an interview or forgot I was waiting so I didnot at any time feel marginalised as a researcher.My concern that my former identity as a ‘Labor parliamentarian’ would

negatively shape interviews with Coalition members was only partially correct.In four instances senior Coalition men used the interview time to discuss thefailings of my (‘your’) political party. At these times I needed to focus on myidentity as an academic researcher and faithfully record the data and make nocomments on the overt political nature of their musings. One of these men wasalso very eager for me to appreciate that ‘we’ (rather than ‘you’) are now ingovernment while another used the interview to attack former Prime MinisterPaul Keating under whose leadership I served. This party political point scoringis unlikely to have been so pronounced for a researcher without myparliamentary history. However, it is likely that any researcher investigatinggender would have had some difficulty in building rapport with these men whowere largely of the opinion that gender was unimportant or irrelevant in theparliament. Their responses to many questions, particularly those specificallyabout barriers to women’s involvement in parliament were brief and somewhatterse. These interactions were highly gendered as the men took on the role ofpaternal and/or authoritative instructor setting straight a less knowledgeableand inexperienced student. Other female researchers interviewing men,particularly those who have interviewed men about gender equity, havedescribed a similar dynamic in their interview encounters (e.g. Pini 2008).In contrast, the great majority of women politicians I interviewed were

effusive and frank in their responses, thus providing me with rich and detaileddata. It is difficult to isolate the extent to which this was because of my identityas ‘woman,’ my identity as ‘former politician’ or other shared social identitiessuch as class or race. Importantly, the rapport I had with women crossed partylines. Indeed, my most candid interviewee was a female MP from the Coalition.I connected strongly with this woman despite the fact that she is well known forbeing extremely conservative and I had only met her once before. Her openingstatement to me in which she recalled her own background at my universityindicated her desire to create a connection. It was also the case that we hadgrown up in the same area and are of a similar age. It became clear as well thatthe interview was occurring at a particularly fraught time for this MP as hermarriage had broken up and she was having difficulties with the care of herteenage children. This woman had also been passed over for Ministerialpositions despite her considerable years of service. As she expressed her

GENDER AND THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT 303

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

08:

35 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

frustration with what she saw as discriminatory treatment of women in theparliament she spoke to me as someone who would have a shared under-standing of her experience and sensitivity to her frustrations. In this instance, ason other similar occasions I did not find it easy to listen to the stories thewomen shared and sometimes wanted to offer advice. However, as Ross (2000,331) points out it is important to represent women’s views faithfully and use theanalysis to question content.The above encounter emphasises a further dynamic that shaped the

interviews, that of age and rendered me insider and/or outsider. In the mainit was interviews with women of my own age (50þ) which were the mostproductive and frank. Interestingly, age seemed to be more critical in creating acommonality than party political involvement. The more limited sense ofrapport I had with ‘younger’ women interviewees may be related to the fact thatI knew fewer of them than I did the more mature members, either throughnetworks or having worked directly with them in the parliament. Anotherfactor may also be due to the nature of the political environment, which is arapidly changing one. In this type of environment there is a tendency toprivilege the incumbent leaders rather than those of the past. I felt this keenly inan interview with a younger female Coalition MP who adopted a patronisingand superior tone throughout, reminding me of my age, the time that hadlapsed since my parliamentary career and the many changes she believed hadoccurred since this time. A further factor that may have influenced my dis/connection with younger females was the attitudes some expressed towards thegender focus of my work, and indeed, gender equity in the parliament. Formany, this was a topic that was associated with the past, that is, indicative of aparticular historical period in time that is far removed from contemporary lifebecause in the modern parliament gender is irrelevant. In this repertoire I waslocated as a relic of this bygone era.

Conclusion

This paper has not adhered to the conventional political science practice of‘hiding the author’ (Perriton 2001, 38). I have, instead, brought my subjectivityto the fore through a reflexive examination of my background as a formerwoman MP and a reflexive investigation of the intersections between thisbackground and my identity as researcher. While reflexivity about the self issaid to be ‘commonplace in research’ today (Robertson 2002, 786), this is notthe case in political science research. In contrast, the discipline appears immuneto the ‘reflexive turn.’ In part, this may be due to the failure of political scienceto embrace feminism and its theoretical and methodological tenets, becausewhile feminism does not have a monopoly on reflexivity, engaging reflexivity issaid to be a key ‘principle of good feminist research’ (Ramazanoglu andHolland 2002, 118).The paper has demonstrated two key principles. The first is that being a

research insider is not inherently advantageous or disadvantageous. In manyrespects my background as a former woman MP acted as an importantacademic resource in my research on gender and the Australian parliament. Itfacilitated my entry to a field that is typically difficult to access as well asassisted with the development of research questions, data collection and data

304 M. CRAWFORD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

08:

35 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

analysis. At the same time, this insider status was ‘not a panacea’ in conductingthe research (Farnsworth 1996, 401) as it also led to problems in accessingparticipants, developing research questions and data collection and analysis.The second principle that has been demonstrated through this reflexive journeyis that dualistic characterisations of insider/outsider positionings are unsound.In this project my identity as a former politician rendered me an insider to someand an outsider to others. In instances, the importance of this identity wassuperseded by other social locations such as age and it was this that shaped mypositioning as either insider/outsider. In sum, the positions of research insiderand outsider are not static positions nor are they mutually exclusive. Rather,they are relative and fluid moving across a continuum throughout a researchproject.

References

Acklesberg, M. 2005. ‘Introduction: Contributions of women political scientists to a more justworld’ Politics & Gender 1: 320–6.

Adams, M. 2003. ‘The Reflexive Self and Culture: A Critique.’ British Journal of Sociology 54:221–38.

Arscott, J. and M. Tremblay. 1999. ‘Il reste encore des travaux a faire: Feminism and PoliticalScience in Canada and Quebec.’ Canadian Journal of Political Science 32: 125–51.

Atkinson, P., A. Coffey and S. Delamont. 2003. Key Themes in Qualitative Research. Continuitiesand Change. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Bagguley, P. 2003. ‘Reflexivity versus Structuration.’ Canadian Journal of Sociology 28: 133–52.

Bhavnani, K. 1993. ‘Tracing the Contours: Feminist Research and Feminist Objectivity.’Women’s Studies International Forum 16: 95–104.

Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.Beck, U. 1994. ‘The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization.’ InReflexive Modernization, eds U. Beck, A. Giddens and S. Lash. Cambridge: Polity.

Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gernsheim. 2002. Individualization. London: Sage.Beckwith, K. 2001. ‘Women’s Movements at Century’s End: Evacuation and Advances inPolitical Science.’ Annual Review of Political Science 4: 371–90.

Beckwith, K. 2005. ‘Common Language of Gender?’ Politics & Gender 1: 128–37.Berry, J. 2002. ‘Validity and Reliability Issues in Elite Interviewing.’ Political Science and Politics35: 679–82.

Bolak, H. 1997. ‘Studying One’s Own in the Middle East. Negotiating Gender and Self-OtherDynamics in the Field.’ In Reflexivity and Voice, ed. R. Hertz. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carroll, S. 2005. ‘Reflections on Activism and Social Change for Scholars of Women andPolitics.’ Politics & Gender 1: 326–36.

Carroll, S. and L. M. G. Zerilli. 1993. ‘Feminist Challenges to Political Science.’ In PoliticalScience: The State of the Discipline II, ed. Ada Finifter. Washington, DC: APSA.

Chappell, L. 2000. ‘Interacting with the State: Feminist Strategies and Political Opportunities.’International Feminist Journal of Politics 2: 244–75.

Childs, S. 2000. ‘The New Labour Women MPs in the 1997 British Parliament: Issues ofRecruitment and Representation.’ Women’s History Review 9: 55–73.

Childs, S. 2001. ‘In Their Own Words: New Labour and the Substantive Representation ofWomen.’ The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 3: 173–90.

Childs, S. and M. Krook. 2006. ‘Gender and Politics: The state of the Art.’ Politics 26: 18–28.Cunliffe, A. L. 2003. ‘Reflexive Inquiry in Organizational Research: Questions and Possibilies.’Human Relations 56: 983–1003.

Desmond, M. 2004. ‘Methodological Challenges Posed in Studying Elite in the Field.’ Area 36:262–69.

Dietz, M. 2003. ‘Current Controversies in Feminist Theory.’ Annual Review of Political Science 6:399–431.

Dyck, I., J. M. Lynam and J. M. Anderson. 1995. ‘Women Talking: Creating Knowledge throughDifference in Cross-cultural Research.’Women’s Studies International Forum 18: 611–26.

Edwards, J. and L. McAllister. 2002. ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? Women in the TwoMain Political Parties in Wales.’ Parliamentary Affairs 55: 154–66.

GENDER AND THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT 305

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

08:

35 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Einagel, V. 2002. ‘Telling Stories, Making Selves.’ In Subjectivities, Knowledges, and FeministGeographies, eds L. Bondi, H. Avis, R. Bankey, A. Bingley, J. Davidson, R. Duffy, V. Einagel,A-M. Green, L. Johnston, S. Lilley, C. Listerborn, M. Marshy, S. McEwan, N. O’Connor, G.Rose, B. Vivat, N. Wood. Lanham, M.A: Rowman & Littlefield.

England, K. 1994. ‘Getting Personal: Reflexivity, Positionality and Feminist Research.’Professional Geographer 46: 80–89.

Farnsworth, E. B. 1996. ‘Reflexivity and Qualitative Family Research: Insider’s Perspectives inBereaving the Loss of a Child.’ Marriage and Family Review 24: 3–4.

Fetterman, D. 1989. Ethnography Step by Step. London: Sage.Foley, D. E. 2002. ‘Critical Ethnography: The Reflexive Turn.’ Qualitative Studies in Education 1:469–90.

Galligan, Y. and S. Clavero. 2008. ‘Prospects for Women’s Legislative Representation inPostsocialist Europe: The Views of Female Politicians.’ Gender and Society 22: 149–71.

Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. 1994. ‘Living in a Post Traditional Society.’ In Reflexive Modernization, eds U. Beck,A. Giddens and S. Lash. Cambridge: Polity.

Grace, G. 1998. ‘Critical Policy Scholarship: Reflections on the Integrity of Knowledge andResearch.’ In Being Reflexive in Critical Educational and Social Research, eds G. Shaylock andJ. Smyth. London: Falmer Press.

Guba, E. and Y. Lincoln. 2005. ‘Controversies, Contradictions, Confluences.’ In The SageHandbook of Qualitative Research, eds N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 191–215. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Halcli, A. and J. Reger. 1997. ‘Strangers in a Strange Land: The Gendered Experiences ofWomen Politicians in Britain and the United States.’ In Feminist Frontiers, eds L. Richardson,V. Taylor and N. Whittier. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hawkesworth, M. 1998. ‘Feminist Theorizing for a Feminist World.’ Frontiers of Women andPolitics Research Seminar. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 2/9/1998.

Hawkesworth, M. 2005. ‘Engendering Political Science. An Immodest Proposal.’ Politics andGender 1: 141–56.

Heller, A. 1991. ‘The Concept of the Political Revisited.’ In Political Theory Today, ed. D. Held.Cambridge: Polity.

Hertz, R. and J. Imber, eds. 1995. Studying Elites Using Qualitative Methods. London: Sage.Hopkins, A. 1993. ‘Observations on Gender, Political Science and the Academy.’ The Journal ofPolitics 55: 561–68.

Hunter, A. 1995. ‘Local Knowledge and Local Power: Notes on the Ethnography of LocalCommunity Elites.’ In Studying Elites Using Qualitative Methods, eds R. Hertz and J. B. Imber.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kantola, J. 2008. ‘‘‘Why do all the women disappear?’’ Gendering Processes in the PoliticalSciences Department.’ Gender, Work and Organization 15: 202–25.

Kathlene, L. 1990. ‘A New Approach to Understanding the Impact of Gender on theLegislative Process.’ In Feminist Research Methods. Exemplary Readings in the Social Sciences,ed. J. M. Nielson. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Kenney, S. J. 1996. ‘New Research on Gendered Political Institutions’ Political ResearchQuarterly 49: 445–66.

Lovenduski, J. 1998. ‘Gendering Research in Political Science.’ Annual Review of Political Science1: 333–56.

Lovenduski, J. and P. Norris. 2003. ‘Westminster Women: the Politics of Presence.’ PoliticalStudies 51: 84–102.

Mackay, F. 2004. ‘Gender and Political Representation in the UK: the State of the ‘‘Discipline.’’’British Journal of Politics and Industrial Relations 6: 99–120.

Marsh, D. and H. Savigny. 2004. ‘Political Science as a Broad Church: The Search for a PluralistDiscipline.’ Politics 24: 155–68.

Nelson, B. J. 1989. ‘Women and Knowledge in Political Science.’ Women and Politics 9: 1–25.Norris, P. 1998. ‘Public Opinion and Political Behaviour.’ Frontiers of Women and PoliticalResearch Seminar. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 2/9/1998.

Norris, P. 2002. ‘Gender and Contemporary British Politics.’ In British Politics Today, ed.C Hay. Cambridge: Polity.

Oakley, A. 1981. ‘Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms.’ In Doing Feminist Research,ed. H. Roberts. London: Routledge and Paul.

Peabody, R. L., S. W. Hammond, J. Torcom, L. D. Brown, C. Thompson and R. Kolodny, 1990.‘Interviewing Political Elites.’ Political Science and Politics 23: 451–55.

Perriton, L. 2001. ‘Sleeping with the Enemy? Exploiting the Textual Turn in ManagementResearch.’ International Journal of Social Research Methodology 44: 35–50.

306 M. CRAWFORD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

08:

35 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Peshkin, A. 1988. ‘In Search of Subjectivity—One’s Own.’ Educational Researcher 10: 17–21.Pillow, W. 2003. ‘Confession, Catharsis, or Cure? Rethinking the Uses of Reflexivity asMethodological Power in Qualitative Research.’ Qualitative Studies in Education 16: 175–96.

Pini, B. 2004. ‘On Being a Nice Country Girl and an Academic Feminist: Using Reflexivity inRural Social Research.’ Journal of Rural Studies 20: 169–79.

Pini, B. 2008. Masculinities and Management in Agricultural Organisations Worldwide. Aldershot:Ashgate.

Puwar, N. 1997. ‘Reflections on Interviewing Women MPs.’ Sociological Research Online 2(1).Randall, V. 1997. ‘Different Voices.’ In Different Roles, Different Voices, eds M. Githens,P. Norris and J. Lovenduski. New York: Harper Collins College.

Ramazanoglu, C. and J. Holland. 2002. Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices. London:Sage.

Riessman, C. 1987. ‘When Gender Is Not Enough: Women Interviewing Women.’ Gender &Society 172–207.

Robertson, J. 2002. ‘Reflexivity Redux: A Pithy Polemic on ‘‘Positionality.’’’ AnthropologicalQuarterly 75: 785–92.

Ross, K. 2000. ‘Unruly Theory and Difficult Practice: Issues and Dilemmas in Work with WomenPoliticians.’ International Feminist Journal of Politics 2: 319–33.

Ross, K. 2001. ‘Political Elites and the Pragmatic Paradigm: Notes from a Feminist Researcher—in the Field and out to Lunch.’ Social Research Methodology 4: 155–66.

Sapiro, V. 1998. ‘Feminist Studies and Political Science and Vice Versa.’ In Feminist Studies, ed.A. Phillips. Oxford University Press.

Sawer, M. 2002. ‘The Representation of Women on Australia: Meaning and Make Believe.’Parliamentary Affairs 55: 5–1.

Sawer, M. 2004. ‘The Impact of Scholarship on Australian Political Science.’ Australian Journalof Political Science 39: 553–66.

Simms, M. 1993. ‘Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Women and the Australian Party System.’In Gender and Party Politics, eds J. Lovenduski and P. Norris. London. Sage.

Skeggs, B. 1994. ‘Situating the Production of Feminist Ethnography.’ In Researching Women’sLives from a Feminist Perspective, eds M. Maynard and J. Purvis. London: Taylor & Francis.

Smith, K. 2005. ‘Problematising Power Relations in ‘‘elite’’ Interviews.’ Geoforum 11: 2.Stanley, L. and S. Wise. 1990. ‘Method, Methodology and Epistemology in Feminist ResearchProcesses.’ In Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology, ed.L. Stanley. London: Routledge.

Stephens, N. 2007. ‘Collecting Data from Elites and Ultra Elites: Telephone and Face-to-faceInterviews with Macroeconomicsts.’ Qualitative Research 7: 203–16.

Taber, N. 2005. ‘Learning How to be a Woman in the Canadian Forces/Unlearning throughFeminism: Ethnography of my Learning Journey.’ Studies in Continuing Education 27: 289–301.

Thompson, S. 2001. ‘Breaking Through the Subjugated Knowledges: Pushing the Boundaries ofUrban Planning.’ In Critical Moments in Qualitative Research, eds H. Byrne-Armstrong,J. Higgs and D. Horsefall. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Tremblay, M. 2003. ‘Women’s Representational Role in Australia and Canada. The Impact ofthe Political Context.’ Australian Journal of Political Science 38: 215–38.

Useem, M. 1995. ‘Reaching Corporate Executives.’ In Studying Elites using Qualitative Methods,eds R. Hertz and J. B. Imber. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Valentine, G. 2002. ‘People Like Us: Negotiating Sameness and Difference in the ResearchProcess.’ In Feminist Methodologies, ed. P. Moss. Oxford: Blackwells.

Vickers, J. 1997. Re-Inventing Political Science. Halifax: Fernwood.

GENDER AND THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT 307

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

08:

35 1

3 O

ctob

er 2

014