To read this content please select one of the options below:

Researcher vs advocate: ethnographic-ethical dilemmas in feminist scholarship

Tania Jain (Said Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK)

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion

ISSN: 2040-7149

Article publication date: 21 August 2017

838

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of dilemmas that emerge at the theoretical and practical interfaces of ethnographic fieldwork and feminist advocacy. This is done by examining the researcher’s role in the field and the complex relationships between the researcher and the researched.

Design/methodology/approach

Critical self-reflections and autoethnographic analyses of fieldwork experiences in the author’s home country in South Asia are used to explore these dilemmas.

Findings

Using situated examples from a typical organisational setting involving both the oppressive and the oppressed, the researcher’s participant observation is found to be conflicted between critical participation and critical observation. Conscious and/or unconscious critical participation through enactment of feminist ethics by combining researcher and advocacy roles allows a route to assuage these conflicts. Practical strategies used to accomplish this are also discussed.

Research limitations/implications

Although the practical strategies discussed in this paper are culturally and organisationally specific and hence limited by them, it is hoped that suitable variants will emerge for readers from their discussion. Further research is needed to investigate the variety of ways in which the researcher-advocate positionality proposed in this paper can be strategically adopted conditional on cultural and organisational contexts, feminist research questions, and researchers’ abilities and constraints.

Practical implications

This paper seeks to shed light on the dilemmas of feminist ethics faced by critical feminist researchers conducting ethnographic fieldwork. It also discusses ways to enable researchers to circumvent these dilemmas in both epistemologically productive ways by collecting rich data and in ontologically enriching ways by allowing some enactment of feminist ethics. To this end, a positionality of the feminist researcher-advocate is conceptualised that does not enforce constraints of extreme positionalities of either a conventional ethnographer or an action researcher.

Social implications

Besides illustrating the need to stretch beyond traditional boundaries of participant observation, the researcher-advocate positionality also allows feminist researchers to make small, but directly tangible impact towards gender equality in their field setting. Implications for researchers’ emotional, and cognitive safety are also discussed especially when they identify with one or more minority identities.

Originality/value

This paper contributes to discussions on the theory of methods by highlighting the benefits of enacting feminist ethics as a way of critical participation in research settings.

Keywords

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Professor Linda Scott for her mentorship and her unwavering encouragement to pursue challenging questions. Green Templeton College and Said Business School at the University of Oxford  in England have generously supported the author’s doctoral studies. This paper has benefited from the feedback of two anonymous reviewers and from words of guidance by Editor-in-Chief Eddy Ng and Associate Editor Julia Nentwich. Finally, many thanks go to the research participants from private schools in New Delhi, India who shared their time and experiences and allowed me a glimpse into their personal and professional lives. This project received ethics approval under Protocol 15 of the Central University Research Ethics Committee at the University of Oxford for research with teachers and teaching in educational settings for typically developing students.

Citation

Jain, T. (2017), "Researcher vs advocate: ethnographic-ethical dilemmas in feminist scholarship", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 566-585. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2017-0016

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2017, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles