inform the individual’s experience. Thus, honouring the value of individual life experiences may allow the researcher to extrapolate insights to the larger social milieu and provide a means of working towards social change (Rosenberg and Howard, 2008). Because women’s life experiences formed the foundation of this study, a feminist viewpoint seemed the logical choice in methodology.
2.1.2 What defines ‘feminist methodology’?
The very term ‘feminist methodology’ is a contested one. In Pini’s (2003a) article on feminist methodology and rural research, she recognized this, and attempted to reconcile her need for a methodological framework with the nebulous nature of a definition for ‘feminist methodology’. In so doing, she puts forth five criteria that she adopted as her principles for conducting feminist research: ‘… a focus on gender, value given to women’s experiences and knowledge, rejection of the separation between subject and object, an emphasis on consciousness-raising and an emphasis on political change’ (p. 419). Pini’s writing is thus representative of feminist concerns throughout sociology and many other disciplines, as each of these concepts continues to be in flux and the subject of academic debate (see, for example, McCall, 2005; Rosenberg and Howard, 2008), and so serves as a point of contact between my research with rural women and the broader spectrum of feminist research.
2.1.3 Challenges to feminist methodology
Choice of methodology provides no certain guarantee that the knowledge produced is directly connected to the reality being studied (Scheurich, 1995). Feminism is no exception to this quandary, which is compounded by the presence of myriad viewpoints on what does or does not constitute appropriate feminist method (Flax, 1987). Fortunately, this situation is not hopelessly irreconcilable, as the potential still exists for feminism to negotiate commonalities in the interactions between epistemology and politics in research (Walby, 2001). The basis for negotiation lies in feminist researchers’ shared goal of gaining ‘an understanding of women’s lives and those of other oppressed groups… that promotes social justice and social change… and … is mindful of the researcher-researched relationship and the power and authority imbued in the researcher’s role …’, including how the researched are represented in the final write-up of research findings (Hesse-Biber, 2007, emphasis in the original), and the tangled process of how the researcher’s subjectivities influence the knowledge she/he produces (Pini, 2004b).
Further challenges to feminist methods may be divided into two key areas, the first of which is the tension between dominant empirical approaches to research and research inclusive of women’s experiences (Lather, 2001). Although theories of power are myriad among feminists, surrounding the shared goal of gaining understanding is the principle that knowledge produced by feminist research should in some way be connected to women’s actual experiences of power within relationships – including those between the researcher and the researched (Naples, 2000). If we accept a definition of experience that embraces the multiplicity of activities involved in women’s everyday lives (Brooks, 2007), it is understandable that experience as a valid source of knowledge has been criticized for a disconnection from theory, for lack of generalizability, and for the simple reason that the human senses are not infallible (Ramazanoglu and Holland, 2002). Nevertheless, feminist knowledge produced using experience as its basis has resonated strongly with many people, suggesting that the examining of experience within a rigorous sociological framework has the potential to produce findings that are both accessible and academic (Smart, 2009).
Secondly, incorporation of the poststructural concept of intersectionality (‘the relationships among multiple dimensions and modalities of social relations and subject formations’) presents quite a challenge to feminist researchers (McCall, 2005, p. 1771). This is particularly the case when varied ways of thinking (for example Eastern and Western) meet (Ramazanoglu and Holland, 2002). Feminist scholars have come to recognize that multiple positions on any given issue must be recognized – even when they are in disagreement with feminist thought (Pini, 2004b). However, this has also led to the assertion that discourse alone cannot capture the effects of experience on women’s actual, physical realities, and therefore experience must be interpreted in some manner, rather than being merely investigated (Smart, 2009). This point brings us to the specific methods used in this study.
2.2 Research Design
Pini (2004b) argues that researchers interested in studying rural women are at a point in time that calls for a methodology which will, much like Sachs’ (1983) work in The Invisible Farmers, make visible these women’s hidden contributions. In light of this call, Shortall’s (2002) view of the exploration of the farm household as key to research exploring gender roles and farm families’ divisions of labour also seems appropriate to the broader rural community. This is not simply because farm women are an important segment of the rural population, but also because examining household gender roles is fundamental to the study of rural women in leadership. Furthermore, in spite of similarities in stereotypes of rural women, their experiences are actually quite varied (Little, 2002). Additionally, as Pini (2003a) points out, addressing issues from a localized perspective strengthens the feminist narrative by giving voice to ‘women [who] have been marginalized and excluded by an all encompassing discourse of feminism’ (p. 422). For this study, the household explored was chiefly the woman’s childhood home (family of origin).
2.2.1 Aims and objectives
As set forth earlier, the aim of this research was to uncover factors that facilitated the acquisition and development of leadership skills among current women leaders from rural areas of Northern Ireland. Using qualitative methods rooted in feminist theories, this study sought to identify commonalities among women who are currently serving in elected or appointed positions of leadership. Wilkinson and Blackmore (2008) have noted that the majority of studies on women in leadership are institution focused – positioning women’s development within the context of a particular organization. Rather than focusing on a single institution or contextualizing the participants’ development solely in terms of a particular organization, this body of work attempted to address the women’s leadership development as a social process rooted in their identity as ‘rural’.6
2.2.2 Site
The first facet of research to be established was that of site. Because the focus was specifically on women leaders from rural areas of Northern Ireland, the rural women’s sector in the region seemed a natural beginning point. Further interviews were conducted with women in other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), politics, business, churches and faith-based organizations, and agricultural organizations – types of organizations included in Macaulay and Laverty’s list of rural women’s groups and organizations in Northern Ireland in their 2007 ‘Baseline Study of Rural Women’s Infrastructure in Northern Ireland’. Interviews with women serving in similar organizations outside the women’s sector, were also included.7
2.2.3 Data gathering
In order to access a broad spectrum of women leaders’ experiences, and to add validity to the study, two methods of qualitative data gathering were employed: in-depth interviews and participant observation. Simultaneously, reflexivity was utilized throughout the study as a tool for data gathering and also for maintaining awareness of any ethical dilemmas that might materialize (Buch and Staller, 2007). The use of semi-structured interviews following an interview schedule loosely contoured to the chronology of participants’ life stories brought
