Affilia

http://aff.sagepub.com

Social Work Research: Is There a Feminist Method?

Sally Mason
Affilia 1997; 12; 10
DOI: 10.1177/088610999701200102

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://aff.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/1/10

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Affilia can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://aff.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://aff.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations (this article cites 15 articles hosted on the

SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://aff.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/12/1/10

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
Social Work Research:
Is There a Feminist Method?

Sally Mason

This article examines whether social work feminist researchers have

reached a consensus about the "best" method for upholding feminist
principles by reviewing the research literature for the application of
those principles, especially in methodology. The author concludes that
no one method seems to take precedence and suggests how social
workers can further the use of feminist principles in their research.

With the contemporary women’s movement of the 1960s and

1970s came skepticism about traditional research and its treat-
ment of women. Feminist research developed out of this skep-
ticism, and feminist social scientists continue to debate its sub-
stance and construction. Much of the debate has focused on the
use of research methods for gathering data. Which methods
correct the deficiencies of patriarchal research? Do feminist
values prescribe the use of some techniques over others? Femi-
nist social scientists have discussed at length the existence or
even the prudence of having a unique feminist method (Gergen,
1988; Harding, 1987; Mies, 1983; Reinharz, 1992; Unger, 1983).
In this article, I ask the same question specifically about feminist
social work research: Is there a feminist method? My thesis is
that no single method is used in feminist social work research

10

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 11

and that feminist principles guide research but do not dictate

the use of specific methods. Thus the methods used are as
diverse as the researchers and their questions.
A review of the literature indicated the difficulty of defining
feminist social work research. Some reports did not mention
feminist values, although feminist scholarship was cited; re-
searchers did not identify themselves as feminist, but I was
familiar with their work as feminists; and collaborative efforts
sometimes included researchers from several disciplines, one
of which was social work. In the end, I considered studies to be
feminist if they fit into at least one of these categories: (a) were
published in the feminist social work journal, (b) were con-
ducted by researchers whom I knew to be feminist or profemin-
ist through their work or as colleagues, and (c) focused on
women and included feminist scholarship in the references.
Other criteria were that at least one of the researchers was a
social worker and that an article or report had to include
information about methods and analyses. Although the cover-
age of feminist research was not comprehensive, I believe it is
representative of the methods most commonly used by feminist
social workers.

BACKGROUND

Criticisms of traditional research include the lack of research on

women’s lives; sexist research designs; the overgeneralization
of findings, especially the use of findings from all-male samples
to explain or describe women; be-
exploitative relationships
tween the researchers and those being studied; and objections
to the use of methods that emphasize objectivity or &dquo;value-free&dquo;
science (Gergen, 1988; Gottlieb & Bombyk, 1987; Jayaratne &
Stewart, 1991). Feminists correct these faults, first, by doing
research &dquo;for&dquo; women as opposed to research &dquo;on&dquo; women
(Duelli-Klein, 1983; Harding, 1987). Research for women &dquo;tries
to take women’s needs, interests and experiences into account
and aims at being instrumental in improving women’s lives in

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
12

one way or another&dquo; (Duelli-Klein, 1983, p. 90). Its three princi-

ples include
1. the use of women’s experiences as a resource for research;
2. the improvement of women’s lives through research; and
3. the reconceptualization of power, so the researcher is on the
same plane as the subject (Duelli-Klein, 1983; Harding, 1987;
Peplau & Conrad, 1989; Van Den Bergh & Cooper 1986).
Feminist researchers generally agree on these principles, but
they disagree on the application of the principles, especially in
data-gathering techniques.
Much of the argument over the use of methods in feminist
research centers on the issue of quantitative versus qualitative
methods. Quantitative methods use data that are evaluated
statistically, and the findings that relationships are statistically
significant implies that a study is significant. Qualitative meth-
ods organize data nonnumerically in patterns, and researchers
look for underlying meanings or relationships (Peplau &
Conrad, 1989). Quantitative methods are often developed on
the basis of a theory, whereas with qualitative methods, the
process is inductive; data are used to develop theory. Data-
gathering techniques that are generally used to generate quan-
titative data are surveys, self-administered scales, and semi-
structured interviews. Qualitative methods include case analyses,
in-depth interviews, and oral histories.
Those who advocate a unique feminist method urge the use
of qualitative methods to address all the features of feminist
research and, in some cases, narrow the field to specific types
of qualitative methods. However, almost every method has
been used in the service of feminist values in social work
research, just as every method has been used toward antifemin-
ist ends in traditional research. Feminist values are reflected in
all aspects of research, not just the choice of methods. The
remainder of this article uses the three principles of feminist
research as the organizing context to present arguments for and
against a single, unique feminist method, with examples from
the literature on social work research.

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 13

PRINCIPLE 1: CAPTURING
WOMEN’S EXPERIENCES

How do feminist researchers best capture women’s experi-

ences ? Advocates for a feminist method argue that qualitative
methods are preferred because quantitative data yield superfi-
cial results. Furthermore, they contend, quantification embod-
ies the masculine values of autonomy, separation, distance, and
control (Jayaratne,1983); and quantitative data limit answers to
numerical responses, so people become variables and numbers.
According to Gergen (1988, p. 89), the &dquo;methods for organizing
social reality are an outgrowth of male development history,&dquo;
which includes separation from the mother, and the &dquo;develop-
ment of a more general preference for separateness over inter-
dependence.&dquo;
Feminist researchers believe that separation is inherent in
quantitative methods because these methods strip experience
of its context-history, social interactions, and situational vari-
ables ; that is, single variables or events are isolated from a
woman’s experience and analyzed separately from the back-
ground in which they are embedded (Davis, 1986; Unger, 1983;
Westkott, 1990). &dquo;It is not possible to decontextualize a phe-
nomenon without changing its significance&dquo; (Gergen, 1988,

p. 91). These types of methods have arguably downplayed the

impact of societal forces, such as oppression, on women’s lives.
In contrast, advocates of feminist research contend that quali-
tative methods embody feminine values of connection and
interdependence (Davis, 1986). Because they are open ended,
they allow for the in-depth study of women’s lives and the
viewing of &dquo;subjects&dquo; holistically within their environments.
Qualitative methods also use women’s words, renaming
women’s experiences in their own terms, which is the hallmark
of feminism (Cummerton, 1986). Unstructured interviews, for
example, leave &dquo;the definition of consciousness as an emergent
knowledge that would come out of the discussions [and allow]
us to develop a more thorough understanding of the women’s
own perspectives as well as get unanticipated information
about events and problems&dquo; (Acker, Barry, & Esseveld, 1983,

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
14

p. 426). Only qualitative analysis can accurately capture the

complex pattern of a woman’s life in context and in her own
terms (Lather, 1988). Indeed, feminist researchers use the pat-
terns of women’s experiences to develop theories for women.
Various types of qualitative methods have been used, espe-
cially in the past 10 years, to describe women’s lives effectively.
One such method is a grounded-theory approach, which Grella
(1988) used in her study of divorced women’s strategies for
negotiating public assistance. The interviews consisted of open-
ended questions and probes, and the process was inductive,
with patterns or &dquo;thematic categories&dquo; derived from the tran-
scribed interviews. In the report, Grella presented the data in
narrative form, with quotations from the women included to
illustrate the themes of their responses.
Narrative analysis is another qualitative method. Riessman
(1989) used it to analyze qualitative data from an interview with
a woman who was going through a divorce. She called the

process &dquo;storifying our lives&dquo; and noted that she used it to

&dquo;bring order to random happenings, [to make] sense by recon-
structing and reinterpreting&dquo; (p. 233). In the case analysis,
Riessman included long sections from the transcript of the
interview that were linguistically coded to represent the
woman’s actual speech. By examining the speech, the structure
of the narrative, and the interaction between listener and teller,
she examined the relationship between form and meaning.
Jones (1994) was also concerned with the meaning that women
construct from their experiences, in this case, with menopause.
Using semistructured interviews, still another qualitative
method, she extended the understanding of the experience of
menopause beyond the medical to &dquo;illuminate the ways in
which a woman’s body might serve as a locus for personal and
social change&dquo; (p. 46).
Fiene (1991) used two other qualitative methods- participant
observation and unstructured interviews-in a study of poor,
rural Appalachian women. She encouraged the women to talk
freely, telling stories and eventually mapping out their

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 15

&dquo;psychological-geographical world, that is, how far they could

travel from home before experiencing anxiety&dquo; (p. 49). Her
intent was to understand the &dquo;power of social context in the
construction of social meaning and ultimately social reality&dquo; (p. 49).
In all four studies, women’s thoughts and feelings were
presented on their own terms, and the women were viewed not
as numbers, but human beings with common experiences
as
and unique qualities. The &dquo;wholeness&dquo; of their lives was cap-
tured, rather than just small pieces of them. Those who are
committed to a feminist method believe that this is the only way
to approach an understanding of women’s lives and that it can
be accomplished only with qualitative methods.
Nonetheless, many feminists recognize that how various
methods are used is more important than which method is
used. Most criticisms of traditional quantitative research are a
response to the sexist design, methodology, or use of findings,
rather than to the use of quantitative data per se (Eichler, 1988).
It is not that quantitative methods cannot be used to explore
women’s experience and problems. It is that they were not used
for that purpose until the early 1980s (Jayaratne, 1983). Sexism
and oppression are not inherent in any method but stem from
the researcher’s bias.
In addition, each method has its weaknesses-&dquo;its own logic,
history and problems&dquo; (Reinharz, 1992, p. 772; see also Harding,
1987; Peplau & Conrad, 1989; Riger, 1992; Unger, 1983). Using
the weaknesses and strengths to understand or explain the
complexity of women’s experience is the aim. Admittedly,
qualitative methods yield data with a richer feel and greater
depth of women’s experience. Yet the main criticism of them is
that analyses are subjective, based on the viewpoints of indi-
vidual researchers (Jayaratne, 1983). &dquo;Sexist assumptions can
influence verbal descriptions of personal interviews and eye-
witness accounts of participant observers as surely as they can
bias the use of statistics&dquo; (Peplau & Conrad, 1989, p. 388).
Qualitative data also rely on small, homogeneous samples
that often do not reflect the diversity of women’s experiences.

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
16

As Cannon, Higginbotham, and Leung (1991) documented,

there are racial and class biases in qualitative research because
White, middle-class women are more likely to volunteer to
participate in studies. In addition, qualitative research is limited
primarily to description.
Roth, Toomey, and First (1987) discussed the inadequacies of
small qualitative studies compared to large quantitative studies
in their research on homeless women. They noted:

The small studies of homeless women can create an in-depth

picture but leave questions about how widespread are the indi-
vidual characteristics and circumstances. For the most part,
research on homelessness is descriptive or polemic; it gives
limited glimpses of certain types of homeless people, life histo-
ries of individuals, and composites of many homeless people’s
lives. Hence, it is difficult to generalize about the problem so that
interventions may be developed to prevent or ameliorate the
condition. (pp. 6-7)

The strengths of quantitative methods are, in some ways, the

polar opposites of the strengths of qualitative methods. First,
large samples can be used; indeed, a certain minimum size is
desirable for accuracy. Second, theories can be validated using
quantitative methods. Third, statistical analysis permits the
evaluation of complex and nonlinear relationships (Peplau &
Conrad, 1989). For example, with multivariate analysis, data
can retain a sense of context by examining the simultaneous

relationships among several variables.

These strengths have their place in social work research. For
instance, Osmond et al. (1993) used data from structured face-
to-face interviews with 620 women who were at a high risk of
contracting HIV Through multivariate analyses, they exam-
ined the ways that sexual risk behaviors are related to the
multiplicative effects of race, class, and gender. To their credit,
the authors recognized the failings of categorization and di-
chotomies in their research and acknowledged that these tech-
niques do not translate the data into &dquo;everyday life experience&dquo;
to indicate what the &dquo;statistics mean in the actual lives of the
women&dquo; (p. 115). Hence they were aware of the weaknesses but

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 17

also the value of this method for explaining the complexity of

subordination in the lives of lower class women of color.
If one accepts that any given method has problems, then
triangulation may be the most appropriate way to compensate
for the biases of each and thus be the best strategy for capturing
women’s experiences. The use of two or more research tech-
niques, preferably a mix of quantitative and qualitative tech-
niques, mitigates the biases of each. For example, in semistruc-
tured interviews, Bennett (1990) asked some questions that
were to be answered on a Likert-type scale and used open-
ended questions for others. The result was a statistically sophis-
ticated report showing the relationship between substance
abuse and woman abuse and citing participants’ comments to
flesh out the meaning of the numbers and humanize the people
involved.
In her study, See (1989) used a 32-item questionnaire with 10
closed-ended items and 22 open-ended items. The closed-
ended questions yielded descriptive information about the
women, such as age and educational levels. The responses to
the open-ended questions were dealt with as qualitative data
and reported as recurring themes. The qualitative data formed
the bulk of the results, and the quantitative data were used to
supplement them.
If the studies cited here are any indication, feminist social
work researchers do not necessarily choose one type of method
over another or view qualitative and quantitative methods as

mutually exclusive choices. Women’s experience is captured

and serves as a resource for research through the use of any one
of several methods.

PRINCIPLE 2: IMPROVING WOMEN’S LIVES

If the starting point in social science is the posing of a meaningful

problem or question, then what is scientific in method is to
address that question in the manner and terms most consonant
with its substance and most likely to lead to relevant answers.
(Du Bois, 1983, p. 109)

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
18

Feminism places research in a political context; by definition,

research must be useful for bringing about change. To define a
method puts the cart before the horse; feminist methods can and
must differ according to the specific circumstances of the re-
search projects (Allen & Baber, 1992; Duelli-Klein, 1983; Riger,
1992). The method that is best suited to the research question is
the one that is the most likely to contribute to the improvement
of or changes in women’s lives. By restricting their use of
methods, researchers may hamper their ability to use their
findings to improve women’s lives (Allen & Baber, 1992).
Changes and improvements can be achieved with any
method. For example, one way to counter quantitative sexist
research is with evidence from quantitative studies, which may
take the form of a secondary analysis of quantitative data or the
replication of a previous quantitative study from a feminist
viewpoint. Stout (1989) used a secondary analysis of archival
data to examine the relationship between the rate of femicide
by male partners and the presence of legislation and resources
to combat violence against women. She looked at the associa-
tions among variables, such as types of legislation, number of
services for the population (men and women), and rates of
intimate femicide in the 50 states over a 3-year period. Her
work, she noted, has consequences for activists, practitioners,
and policymakers. Her hope was that her study would lay the
foundation for in-depth analyses, including predictive model-
ing, that would allow for the assessment of &dquo;which variables
best explain the rate of intimate femicide in a state&dquo; (Stout, 1989,
p. 29).
In an article, Rubin (1988) recounted the progression of stud-
ies on sexism and salary differences in schools of social work.
Early studies indicated that sex discrimination in administra-
tion accounted for gender-related salary disparities. Rubin
(1981) identified extraneous variables that had not been con-
trolled for previously and followed up with a multivariate
analysis of data from the Council on Social Work Education
(CSWE). Following critiques of his study, he did another analy-
sis of the same data (Rubin, 1982), in which he controlled for

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 19

other variables. His studies were followed by Norman’s (1986)

analysis of similar data for 1984-1985, which controlled for
some similar variables and omitted others.
In his 1988 article, Rubin presented his findings from a
secondary analysis of CSWE’s 1985-1986 database on salaries
for social work education. His findings were again discrepant
from Norman’s on the basis of the control of different variables.
As the argument seesawed back and forth, the continuing
dialogue and the passion for validity seemed just as important
as the results. Rubin encouraged researchers to counter his

study, and for

those who believe that women fare worse in salary and rank not
because schools of social work discriminate against them, but
because of their greater likelihood to have been primary care-
givers for dependent family members, he urged not to let the
findings deter them from working for policies that will create
merit criteria that take into account the societal contributions
that such caregivers have made. (Rubin, 1988, p. 81)
When seeking to effect change through research, one finds it
difficult to overlook the power of quantitative methods on the
powers-that-be. Quantitative methods, rightly or wrongly, in-
fluence policymakers because of the large samples and the
&dquo;illusion of objectivity&dquo; associated with traditional research
methods (Jayaratne,1983). This does not mean that only quan-
titative methods should be used but, rather, that the power of
quantitative methods to effect change cannot be ignored. How-
ever, the intent of furthering the interests of women can be
expressed through other means not related to method. In other
words, simply by making women’s experience visible and
investigating the forces that are unique to women’s lives, re-
search improves women’s lives.
It is not uncommon for authors to describe the importance of
their studies to women’s lives and, knowing that there is &dquo;an
audience for their knowledge&dquo; (Cook & Fonow, 1990, p. 79), to
suggest how the findings can be used to bring about change.
For example, Benda and Dattalo (1990, p. 50) studied homeless
people and concluded that the &dquo;path that leads to homelessness

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
20

differs according to gender.&dquo; They chose women as the focus of

their research because of the dearth of information on homeless
women and their behavior, such as substance abuse and crime,
that appear to contribute to homelessness. The authors ended
with a lengthy discussion of implications for policy and
practice.
Spakes and Nichols-Casebolt (1994) added women’s voices
to the social policy debate by asking women to identify critical
issues for families. They took special care to include women
who have been unrepresented or underrepresented in the pol-
icy process. Similarly, in her case study of battered women’s
shelters in Appalachia, lice (1990) emphasized the problems
that are unique to rural communities, which have been over-
looked in the literature. Osmond et al. (1993, p. 99) claimed that
their &dquo;research not only challenges mainstream thinking about
race, class, and gender but also provides overdue information
on the vulnerability of women to HIV infection&dquo; and suggested
how the data could be used in scholarship, intervention, policy,
and research. Likewise, Schilit, Clark, and Shallenberger wrote:
This study was undertaken specifically to add to the body of
knowledge about the dynamics of alcoholism among lesbians.
It is hoped that it will provide new information that will aid
clinicians, program planners, and directors of agencies to serve
lesbian alcoholics better. In addition, the findings should aid the
development of better alcoholism prevention efforts for at-risk
individuals. (1988, p. 28)

Furthermore, many of the research questions that feminist so-

cial work researchers ask are about changes in women’s lives.
Consciousness-raising transitions, such as divorce, menopause,
returning to college, and adjustment to unemployment, consti-
tuted almost half the research that I reviewed.
Proponents of a single feminist method take the principle one
step further and insist that change should be part of the research
process. They do so essentially because they believe that analy-
sis alone does not improve conditions and that researchers must
sometimes create change to study it (Harding, 1987; Millman &

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 21

Kanter, 1975) or, as Mies (1983, p. 125) put it, &dquo;If you want know
a thing, you must
change it.&dquo; Mies (1983) went on to say:
In crises, women are confronted with the real social relation-
ships in which they had unconsciously been submerged as
objects without being able to distance themselves from them. As
long as normalcy is not disrupted they are not able to admit even
to themselves that these relationships are oppressive or ex-

ploitative. (p. 125)

This is research as praxis: a paradigm committed to building a
more just society, as well as understanding the world using a
research design, with &dquo;conscious empowerment&dquo; in mind
(Lather, 1988).
According to MacKinnon (1989), consciousness-raising is the
feminist method of choice. Through it, women have shared
their experiences and eventually shaped the analysis of
women’s situation.

&dquo;[An] oppressed group must at once shatter the self-reflecting

world which encircles it and project its own image onto
...

history... [T]o discover its own identity as distinct from that of

the oppressor, it has to become visible to itself.&dquo; (Rowbotham,
1973, quoted in MacKinnon, 1989, p. 84)
Research to effect change often prescribes consciousness-
raising techniques as a central strategy to elicit data and
consciousness-raising life-course transitions as the context for
study (Mies, 1983).
Mies, a sociologist, has been credited with rediscovering
action research (Duelli-Klein, 1983). One of her examples of
action research is a project that linked a study of battered
women with advocacy for a battered women’s shelter. &dquo;Its aim
was not only to document the women’s life histories as indi-

viduals, but also to record a collective experience of women in

our society which would lead to theories and strategies for

change&dquo; (Duelli-Klein, 1983, p. 94). The data-gathering tech-

niques used were interviews, conversations, group discussion,
and role-plays: qualitative techniques whose aim was to estab-
lish women’s collective consciousness to make changes. In

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
22

short, consciousness-raising was combined with the struggle to

develop an alternative for battered women.
In my review of feminist social work research, I found no
examples of action research in which change was an integral
part of the research. At the end of her report of a study of women
who kill, Stout (1991) stated that her research became advocacy
based; that is, social and legal advocacy were provided for the
women who participated in the study This type of research
follows from the ethical concern of a practitioner who watches
detachedly when a participant needs intervention. Although
laudable, it is not the same as action research. Again, this
principle of feminist research-improving women’s lives-is
reflected in the application of techniques and the choice of
subject, rather than through one specific method.

PRINCIPLE 3: RECONCEPTUALIZING POWER

Reconceptualizing power means eliminating the distance be-

tween thesubject and the object by putting the researcher in the
same plane as the subject (Harding, 1987). Proponents of a
method or, at least, of certain methods of feminist research
believe that qualitative methods are the only ones that can
change the traditional power relationships in research. Accord-
ing to them, the premises established and questions formed in
any study are part of the researcher’s perspective. However,
quantitative methods appear &dquo;objective&dquo; because numbers are
objective. The researcher gives the appearance of remaining at
a distance and not becoming involved with his or her subjects

(Harding, 1987; Millman & Kanter, 1975).

Furthermore, the masculine values intrinsic to quantitative
methods reflect not only separation, distance, and control, dis-
cussed earlier, but also power and dominance. Because re-
searchers are stripped of their contexts, their perspectives are
rarely questioned. The presumptions of the power and omnipo-
tence of researchers inherent in quantitative methods reflect
and reinforce traditional patterns of gender relationships in

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 23

society. &dquo;In effect, scientific dominance is simply another mani-

festation of sexual dominance&dquo; (Gergen, 1988, p. 94). Female
researchers who adopt such a view from above, using tradi-
tional research methods, essentially consent to their own op-
pression as women (Mies, 1983).
A view from below requires researchers to give research tools
to participants, so the subjects can become researchers, and to
use qualitative methods, such as unstructured interviews, that

emphasize the interdependence of the researchers and the sub-

jects. These methods demand a connection. In an interview, for
example, power can be shared actively when the researcher
encourages the interviewee to take the lead in deciding what to
talk about (Acker et al., 1983).
Grella’s (1988), Riessman’s (1989), and Jones’s (1994) use of
women’s words as data makes the participants and their expe-
riences central to the research reports and indicates that the
knower and the known are of equal importance in the endeavor.
The reader of the report is aware that without the women’s
stories, there would have been no research and that the women
had the power to involve the researcher and may have been
empowered through the reconstruction of their stories. Thus
the reader is left with a sense of a living connection to the
subjects because the researcher was willing to give up power
and report it accordingly According to Mies (1991), this sense
of connection is what justifies the use of various qualitative
methods as the methods of choice for feminists. As she noted,
&dquo;the difference between quantitative and qualitative methods
lies ... in the fact that the qualitative methods, despite ideologi-
cal distortion, do not break living connections in the way that
quantitative methods do&dquo; (p. 67).
Obviously quantitative techniques are used in feminist so-
cial work research. In these cases, the researchers do not rely on
these methods for eliminating the distance between them and
their subjects. Rather, the context in which the methods are
applied is the key In feminist research, the researcher &dquo;must be
placed within the frame of the picture that she/he attempts to
paint&dquo; (Harding, 1987, p. 9). That is, she or he is a member of a

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
24

social category that occupies a definite position in society that

has consequences for the selection of questions, procedures,
and analyses. The dichotomy between the researcher and the
subject is replaced with a sharing of power (Cummerton, 1986).
In much of feminist social work research, placing the re-
searcher in context involves outlining values and viewpoint in
the research report. Thus the researcher appears as a living,
breathing human being with &dquo;concrete specific desires and
interests&dquo; (Harding, 1987, p. 9), rather than an anonymous,
&dquo;objective&dquo; authority figure. With this information, the biases
of the researcher become part of the evidence that the reader of
the report can use to evaluate the work.
When the researcher is vulnerable to questioning, power is
equalized among the researcher, the researched, and the reader
(Stanley & Wise, 1983). The intent is to eliminate the view from
above (Mies, 1983) that is prevalent in traditional research and
to place the researcher and the subject on the same level. For
example, Lundy and Mason (1994) began their research report
by explaining how they became interested in the topic they
studied:
As two women social workers, we noticed the proliferation of
advertisements for women’s health centers. Ads seemed to be
everywhere-on billboards, on public transportation, in the
newspaper, and in our mailboxes. As two feminists, we were
curious, hopeful, but tentative about the focus and range of
services at these women’s health centers. (p. 109)

Similarly,Osmond et al. (1993) expressed their gratitude to

feminist scholars who are women of color and lesbians for
bringing their attention to the effects of oppression and women
and AIDS, respectively Theirs was a clear message of interde-
pendence that broke the illusion of the researcher as separate
and authoritarian that is common in traditional research.
In her study of battered women’s shelters, Tice (1990) related
her commitment to this cause:

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 25

In addition, the author collaborated with several of the pro-

grams on an ongoing basis as a trainer of volunteers and as a

faculty supervisor of social work students doing field work and

through d series of informal contacts with the staff, board mem-
bers, and volunteers. The author’s previous experiences as a
staff member of a rural battered women’s shelter facilitated the
dialogic nature of the interview and fostered the commitment
to reciprocity and sense of connection throughout the research
process. (p. 89)
Note that in the last sentence, reconceptualizing power also
includes an adjustment in the relationship between the re-
searcher and the researched in all stages of the research. An
egalitarian relationship is assumed, with the participants con-
sidered experts in the area of study without which there would
be no research.
In handling the imbalances of power, Gottlieb and Bombyk
(1987) pointed out that the researcher and participants do not
have to hold the same kind of power. &dquo;Rather, participants are
conceived of as self-determining agents who have the freedom
and power to negotiate a fair research bargain with the re-
searcher&dquo; (p. 32). The researcher can manifest this fair bargain
in several ways: establishing respectful relationships; develop-
ing a rapport with the agency or participants (Davis, 1986; Tice,
1990); sharing the findings in writing with the participants
(Acker et al., 1983); and asking for participants’ input into the
research process, such as during the construction of interview
questions (Davis, 1986). In short, the emphasis is on the process
as well as the product.
As theseexamples indicate, the reconceptualization of the
power relationship between the researcher and the researched
does not require specific techniques in social work research,
because a variety of data-gathering methods are used. Power
is balanced through the inclusion of the researcher’s values
as part of the data and through respect for the role of the

participants.

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
26

CONCLUSION

The examples from the literature clearly indicate that feminist

social workers use a variety of methods when they conduct
research and that there is no unique method for this research.
This trend should continue for a variety of reasons that relate
to the social work profession. First, feminist social workers
conduct research within the context of a discipline (as do all
feminist researchers). Feminism supplies the perspective, and
the disciplines supply the methods (Reinharz, 1992). If feminist
social workers do not use the traditional tools of social work
research, then, as Unger (1983) said of feminist psychology,
&dquo;there is little likelihood that our work will be taken seriously
within our discipline&dquo; (p. 23).
Second, feminist researchers work not only within the social
work profession but within a social and political context. As
advocates for the disenfranchised, they must encourage their
subjects’ participation and voice in the process of change. How-
ever, to define a method (such as a qualitative method) as
feminist could restrict and prolong their efforts to counteract
classist, sexist, and racist research with methods that have
political power.
Third, the social work perspective of person-in-situation, or
the ecological approach, suggests that researchers should have
access to a range of methods to understand the complexity
of women’s lives and how political and social forces shape
women’s lives. Quantitative methods of analysis, such as mul-
tivariate statistical procedures, are &dquo;ecologically valid&dquo;
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Furthermore, the use of both qualita-
tive and quantitative methods may present an even better
picture. Each method &dquo;is likely to give only a partial view of the
focus of research&dquo; (Allen & Baber, 1992, p. 9). However, a
combination of methods gives different perspectives on the
subject matter and eliminates the bias in any one.
Finally, feminist research, especially feminist social work
research, is still in the process of &dquo;becoming&dquo; (Davis, 1986). To
define its methods now may discourage exploration and inno-

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 27

vation. By claiming that all methods are potentially feminist,

feminist researchers can remain open and flexible and carry on
a dialogue that continues to question the assumptions of vari-
ous methods, rather than to accept any one as superior. As
feminists have challenged the claim of the superiority of posi-
tivism, feminist social work researchers should avoid becoming
trapped in a set of rigidly fixed rules. As feminism and social
work recognize human diversity, feminist social work re-
searchers should support the diversity of feminist researchers.
If no method is unique to feminist social work research, then
what characterizes this research must be how the methods are
used. This review of feminist social work research methods led
me to propose the following tentative recommendations for

improving research:
1. Much of the research reviewed used quantitative methods, such
as surveys, self-administered scales, secondary analyses, or
structured interviews. Feminist social work researchers also
need to use and support the use of qualitative research on its
own and, especially, as a complement to quantitative research.
As Heineman (1981, p. 389) noted: &dquo;It never fails to amaze me
that some colleagues take the trouble of including human sub-
jects to participate in their experiments and then squander the
major difference between [humans] and animal[s]-the ability
to talk and reflect on experience.&dquo; Because each research method
is viable in some instances, feminist social work researchers
should be critical and intelligent users of all methods and ac-
knowledge the weaknesses of the methods they use, as did
Osmond et al. (1993).
2. Implications for practice were often included in reports of re-
search. However, in an attempt to contribute to change, re-
searchers should also include policy or macro-level recommen-
dations. Likewise, consciousness-raising methods and action
research deserve attention. Social workers have a mandate to
create change at all levels of society-micro, mezzo, and
macro-and have the skills to document women’s lives. They
need to try to combine the two-the mandate and the skills-in
research that effects change on all three levels simultaneously
3. Usually, authors of research articles do not place themselves
within the context of their research. This omission is probably
the result of their following the criteria for appropriate reporting

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
28

that are set by publishers of journals. Publishers may consider

other approaches to reporting research to reflect improper or
sloppy research. To challenge the objectivist stance, researchers
should put something about themselves in their research reports
by telling how they approached participants and in which in-
stances the participants’ input was sought.
If there are few examples of other approaches to reporting
social work research, feminist researchers should take some
steps to create them. Feminism directly confronts the idea that
one person or set of persons has the right to impose definitions
of reality on others. One way for feminist researchers to avoid
imposing their definitions on others-and to present a less
monolithic view of doing research-is to include a more person-
alized discussion of the research process, because the researcher
is not only part of the research but is the part that is the most
accessible to discussion and analysis (Stanley & Wise, 1991).

In this regard, Davis (1986) critiqued one of her earlier studies

(Davis & Carlson, 1981) and made suggestions for incorporat-
ing feminist values into research. The study used four scenarios
to measure attitudes of service providers (social workers, phy-
sicians, nurses, police officers, and shelter workers) toward
domestic violence. Davis’s criticisms of the study were that
there was no input from the service providers on the scenarios
and questionnaires and no contact between the researchers and
the respondents, the context was omitted by isolating selected
factors from the &dquo;complex web of interconnections within
which they are normal embedded&dquo; (Davis, 1986, p. 41) to find
causal relationships, standardized scenarios ignored the indi-
vidual contexts of the provision of services, and response cate-
gories had little room for diversity.
Davis (1986) noted that all these weaknesses could have been
remedied, some in obvious ways, through the inclusion of
service providers in the development and criticism of final
reports. With regard to the method, Davis would have used
in-depth interviews in which the respondents could have ex-
plored &dquo;the frustrations and satisfactions in their work with
battered women and [reflected] on the changes that ... oc-

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 29

curred in their attitudes and beliefs over the years&dquo; (p. 42). To
avoid stripping the women of their historical and sociopolitical
contexts and to express their individuality, the researchers
should have asked the providers to relate real stories of women
who came to them for assistance.
Admittedly, the foregoing suggestions entail some risk to
researchers. Working with unfamiliar methods and changing
approaches to reporting can be uncomfortable, as can the lack
of external rewards from colleagues and publications. How-
ever, discomfort should not deter researchers from asking,
What makes our research feminist? If feminist social work
research is not defined by methods, it appears to be defined by
principles or values similar to those proposed in this article.
Therefore, feminist social workers should take a critical look at
how they incorporate those principles in their research and
subsequent reports.

REFERENCES

Acker, J., Barry, K., & Esseveld, J. (1983). Objectivity and truth: Problems in
doing feminist research. Women’s Studies: International Forum, 6 , 423-435.
Allen, K. R., & Baber, K. M. (1992). Ethical and epistemological tensions in
applying a postmodern perspective to feminist research. Psychology of
Women Quarterly,
1-15. 16,
Benda, B. B., & Dattalo, P. (1990). Homeless women and men: Their problems
and use of services. Affilia, 5
(3), 50-82.
Bennett, L. (1990). Predictors ofwomen abuse by male substance abusers. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977, July). Toward an experimental ecology of human
development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-529.
Cannon, L. W., Higginbotham, E., & Leung, M.L.A. (1991). Race and class bias
in qualitative research on women. In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds.),
Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research (pp. 107-118).
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Cook, J. A., & Fonow, M. M. (1990). Knowledge and women’s interests: Issues
of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. In
J. Neilsen (Ed.), Feminist research methods: Exemplary readings in the social
sciences (pp. 69-93). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
30

Cummerton, J. M. (1986). A feminist perspective on research: What does it

help us see? In N. Van Den Bergh & L. B. Cooper (Eds.), Feminist visions for
social work (pp. 80-100). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social
Workers.
Davis, L. V (1986). A feminist approach to social work research. Affilia, 1
(1),
32-46.
Davis, L. V, & Carlson, B. C. (1981). Attitudes of service providers toward
domestic violence. Social Work Research and 34-39.
Abstracts, 17,
Du Bois, B. (1983). Passionate scholarship: Notes on values, knowing and
method in feminist social science. In G. Bowles & R. Duelli-Klein (Eds.),
Theories of Women’s Studies (pp.105-116). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Duelli-Klein, R. D. (1983). How to do what we want to do: Thoughts about
feminist methodology. In G. Bowles & R. Duelli-Klein (Eds.), Theories of
Women’s Studies (pp. 88-104). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Eichler, M. (1988). Nonsexist research methods. Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Fiene, J. I. (1991). The construction of self by rural low-status Appalachian
women. Affilia, 6
(2), 45-60.
Gergen, M. (1988). Toward a feminist metatheory and methodology in the
social sciences. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of
knowledge (pp. 87-104). New York: New York University Press.
Gottlieb, N., & Bombyk, M. (1987). Strategies for strengthening feminist
research. Affilia, 2(2), 23-35.
Grella, C. E. (1988). Strategies for surviving divorce: The contradictions of
welfare. Affilia, 3(4), 24-37.
Harding, S. (Ed.). (1987). Feminism and methodology. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Heineman, M. B. (1981). The obsolete scientific imperative in social work
research. Social Service Review, 55, 371-397.
Jayaratne, T. E. (1983). The value of quantitative methodology for feminist
research. In G. Bowles & R. Duelli-Klein (Eds.), Theories of women’s studies
(pp. 140-161). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Jayaratne, T. E., & Stewart, A. J. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative methods
in the social sciences: Current feminist issues and practical strategies. In
M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds.), Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship
as lived research (pp. 85-106). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Jones, J. (1994). Embodied meaning: Menopause and the change of life. Social
Work in Health (3-4),
Care, 43-65.
19
Lather, P. (1988). Feminist perspectives on empowering research methodolo-
gies. Women’s Studies International , Forum,
569-581. 11
Lundy, M., & Mason, S. (1994). Women’s health care centers: Multiple defini-
tions. Social Work in Health Care, 19(3-4), 109-122.
MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Mies, M. (1983). Towards a methodology for feminist research. In G. Bowles
& R. Duelli-Klein (Eds.), Theories of women’s studies (pp. 117-139). Boston:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Mies. M. (1991). Women’s research or feminist research? The debate sur-
rounding feminist science and methodology. In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
 31

(Eds.), Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research (pp. 60-84).

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Millman, M., & Kanter, R. M. (Eds.). (1975). Another voice: Feminist perspectives
of social life and social sciences (pp. vii-xvii). Garden City, NY: Doubleday-
Anchor Books.
Norman, E. (1986). A new look at salary equity for male and female faculty
in schools of social work. Affilia,1
(4), 39-48.
Osmond, M. W., Wambach, K. B., Harrison, D. F., Levine, P., Imershein, A.,
Quadagno, D. M., & Byers, J. (1993). The multiple jeopardy of race, class,
and gender for AIDS risk among women. Gender and Society, 7, 99-120.
Peplau, L. A., & Conrad, E. (1989). Beyond nonsexist research: The perils of
feminist methods in psychology Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 379-
400.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Riessman, C. K. (1989). From victim to survivor: A woman’s narrative recon-
struction of marital sexual abuse. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 60,
232-249.
Riger, S. (1992). Epistemological debates, feminist voices: Science, social
values, and the study of women. American Psychologist, 47, 730-740.
Roth, D., Toomey, B. G., & First, R. J. (1987). Homeless women: Characteristics
and needs. Affilia, 2(4), 6-19.
Rubin, A. (1981). Reexamining the impact of sex on salary: The limits of
statistical significance. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 17
, 19-24.
Rubin, A. (1982). Why do women occupy lower academic ranks: Discrimina-
tion or progress? Social Work Research and Abstracts, 18, 19-23.
Rubin, A. (1988). Gender and salary in graduate schools of social work: An
outworn issue? Affilia, 3 (3), 63-82.
Schilit, R. C., Clark, W. M., & Shallenberger, E. A. (1988). Social supports and
lesbian alcoholics. Affilia, 3(2), 27-40.
See, L.A.L. (1989). Tensions between black women and white women: A study.
Affilia, 4(2), 31-45.
Spakes, P, & Nichols-Casebolt, A. (1994). Perspectives of women on family
and social policy Affilia, 9(4), 360-381.
Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1983). Breaking out: Feminist consciousness and feminist
research. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1991). Feminist research, feminist consciousness, and
experiences of sexism. In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds.), Beyond
methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research (pp. 265-283). Bloom-
ington : Indiana University Press.
Stout, K. D. (1989). "Intimate femicide": Effect of legislation and social ser-
vices. Affilia, 42, 21-30.
Stout, K. D. (1991). Women who kill: Offenders or defenders? Affilia, 6
(4), 8-22.
Tice, K. W. (1990). A case study of battered women’s shelters in Appalachia.
Affilia, 5
(3), 83-100.
Unger, R. K. (1983). Through the looking glass: No wonderland yet! (The
reciprocal relationship between methodology and models of reality). Psy-
,8
chology of Women Quarterly (1), 9-32.

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
32

Van Den Bergh, N., & Cooper, L. B. (1986). Introduction. In N. Van Den Bergh &
L. B. Cooper (Eds.), Feminist visions for social work (pp. 1-28). Silver Spring,
MD: National Association of Social Workers.
Westkott, M. (1990). Feminist criticism of the social sciences. In J. Neilsen (Ed.),
Feminist research methods: Exemplary readings in the social sciences (pp. 58-67).
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sally Mason is Assistant Professor for Clinical Social Work in Psychiatry,

Institute for Juvenile Research, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Downloaded from http://aff.sagepub.com by Roli Talampas on May 6, 2008

© 1997 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.