Chapter Summaries

Chapter 3: Feminist Methodological Reflection

This chapter starts by raising the question of who is best suited to conduct feminist

inquiry or research. It emphasizes that feminist inquiries should not be left to women or other

individuals who identify as feminists because it downplays the scholarly aspect of the

phenomenon. Notably, self-reflection is the most critical guide to feminist research as it helps the

scholar to create new questions and ensure that the process remains focused on the power of

knowledge. The chapter points out that although feminist methodologies are similar to others,

such as post-colonial, women's movements, and social movements, the former are well

conducted because feminists pay attention to all scopes of power, exclusion or inclusion of

boundaries, power, and duty and the role of self-reflection throughout the process(Klotz &

Prakash, 2008). Further, it explains the need for feminist scholars to understand that their work is

continuous and hierarchical, as feminist methodology requires. When reflection is used in all

research stages, from formulation of research questions to publication, it helps explore new

avenues for conceptualizing the results on its subjects and scholars. However, many feminist

scholars find empirical work difficult because feminist theory calls for more than just focusing

on the presence or the high voices but rather being attentive to the silence, absence, oppression,

and difference. As the chapter reveals, researchers learn to probe certain harmonies and

repetitive themes continuously in a never-ending, humble, reflective journey. Brooke Ackerly,

the author of this chapter, discusses these complexities of reflective feminist methodology

through his work on human rights, highlighting how feminist theory complicates but, at the same

time, inspires empirical work.

Feminist inquiry in brief

role in unmasking the inequalities and differences that influence the exercise of power across

various academic explorations. According to him, ethics in feminist research stem from the

feminist theory encouraging epistemological reflection throughout the process. When the

political, social, and economic theory of knowledge obscure or normalize oppression, feminism

directs scholars' attention to such details. However, he cautions that scholars might be trapped in

self-reflection as they focus on inequalities and silence, losing sight of the research subject. To

explain the incapacitation and fear, the chapter quotes Martha Nussbaum's explanation that one

feels his being and ideas threatened by the existing systems affecting the emancipatory

expectations in feminism(Klotz & Prakash, 2008). Therefore, the scholar must make choices

guided by applying power and discernment, which will help solve methodological dilemmas.

Methodological dilemmas in practice

Ackerly brings on board his own experience with methodological dilemmas when he decided to

research the feminist perspective of universal human rights. This was after encountering activists

and feminists who had to work together on a project about women's human rights, bringing up

the question of theoretical articulation. While he acknowledges that some dilemmas could be

partly solved, he insists that others could never be solved. Like any other feminist researcher, the

author encountered the four main dilemmas relating to power, boundaries, relations, and self-

reflection. These dilemmas affect the objectivity of the process because scholars often deviate

and even go back to previous steps in an attempt to solve them. The chapter gives an example of

a scholar going back to research questions after facing problems with sampling methods. It

explains how the author's first dilemma was the question of universal human rights, whether real

or concealed inequality. However, after talking to different women's rights activists, he agrees
that asking the question was necessary to question power and not conceal its application(Klotz &

Prakash, 2008). The design dilemma centered on which literature to use because he considered

that excessive use of the internet may affect the sample diversity. Through this dilemma, Ackerly

acknowledged that ethical and practical research subject selection considerations bring about

research design dilemmas. For example, the epistemological power in the research did not permit

the use of a representation of women's rights activists because of the diversity of the world.

Therefore, the author chose to select marginalized activists with a different voice, which set him

back to the right venue to meet these subjects because the internet may not provide the genuinely

marginalized subject but rather the most powerful. Finally, he settles on the international world

discussions such as Mumbai Resistance and the World Social Forum (WSF) as they brought

together people from different backgrounds, hence different extents of marginalization(Klotz &

Prakash, 2008). The cost of traveling to these meetings removed the doubt that the participants

would be some elites trying to obscure the exercise of power as it attracted women from the

lowest levels.

Chronologically, through the research process, the next dilemma related to what questions would

capture the intended scope and answer the selected questions. The authors ponder whether the

questions asked in these interviews will create a continuous dialogue or correspondence to help

in data analysis. In this case, the research would require a second phase of data collection to

acquire correspondence from the subject, but unfortunately, many of them could not be found

because of their social status. Finally, the author discusses how publishing is part of the

feminism methodology because the report had to reach the intended audience, including the

marginalized women activists. Therefore, it needed to be put in a way accessible both physically

and in a language they could understand. Additionally, the author mentions that the report was
not the end of the process but rather a beginning, which brought together scholars to ask a prime

question about researching for social justice as opposed to researching about it. At the end of the

work, a bond between scholars and activists was formed, with Ackerly acknowledging the

obligation to reveal the marginal spaces worldwide that leave these activists' work unnoticed,

unacknowledged, and invisible. It highlighted how these struggles were why scholars could

exercise epistemology in feminist methodology.

Curb cutting as a pedagogical tool

This section introduces the term " 'Curb cut feminists, ' where scholars are called upon to

"experience" the marginalization of others by being conscious of the possibility of invisible

experiences. The term comes from sidewalk curb cuts that enable people in wheelchairs to move

about, the same way feminist curb cuts clear barriers for the marginalized, such as minority

immigrant women, to exist in a fairer society. Theoretically, curb-cut feminists remain aware of

invisible privileges and strive to uncover them to deal with inequality. To explain the pedagogy,

the author explains how he asks his students in the University to run simple errands on wheel

cheer to see how privileged they are. In the process, the experiences and challenges of the less

privileged are unmasked(Klotz & Prakash, 2008). The author further explains that being

conscious of the invisible experiences of the less privileged but what matters is how the scholars

pay attention to them. The most critical detail of curb-cut feminism is getting the right insights

from the affected individuals to develop solutions. According to the author, all invisible

marginalization is not the same and requires unique remedies.

The chapter concludes by emphasizing that the dilemmas faced in feminist methodology are

necessary for them to fulfill feminist theory's call for ethical considerations of the hierarchies of

knowledge. As many research questions there are, dilemmas will always be present. Instead of

avoiding the discomfort, scholars should embrace them to focus on silence, absence, oppression,

and difference adequately. With the awareness of how well research and the power of knowledge

can reveal or conceal, feminist researchers need to balance humility and responsibility in their

methodological reflection.

Chapter 4: Case Selection

This chapter, written by Audie Klotz, analyses how the number and selection of research cases

define the study method. While studies involving one case are categorized as qualitative while

those with several cases are defined as quantitative, the author points out that researchers should

consider other factors such as level and unit of analysis. For instance, in a single case study

where the scholar uses statistical analysis, deciding whether the method is qualitative or

quantitative is difficult. The chapter draws from other research and the author's book, Norms in

International Relations: The Struggle against Apartheid, to illustrate how defining the purpose

and theoretical framework of the research expands its rationale, whether in single, two, or several

cases projects.

Cases of what?

This chapter section defines case and case selection, starting with pointing out that cases

comprise concepts rooted in theoretical assumptions. Klotz discusses how he faced the problem

of conceptualization in his dissertation, struggling to present race as an ideology, culture, or

subject because they focused on selected aspects while leaving others out. In the end, the author

chose to place race in the context of regime theory, defining it as a norm of racial implications.

The case of apartheid in South Africa overturned many existing theories, redirecting researchers

from concepts to measures. The author further explains that conceptualization influences case

selection because as researchers narrow their broad topics, the research questions change

throughout each stage. He gives an example of a fellow researcher, Roxanne Doty, who defined

race according to the hegemonic dialogue questioning relationships between colonizers and their

subjects(Klotz & Prakash, 2008). Ultimately, she came up with different research questions,

conceptualizations, and cases. The section criticizes that researchers idiosyncratically define

cases rather than contextualize concepts. The author suggests borrowing from Goertz's questions

to avoid vagueness in the study research case, beginning with questioning the opposite of the

selected concept.

How many possible cases?

The author discusses choosing which cases to include in the research, categorizing them as cases

and non-cases from the "universe of cases." He gives examples of small cases, such as world

wars, while bigger ones might encompass wars in general. However, even with the large cases,

researchers need to identify non-cases to narrow down to key concepts and questions. The

author, however, cautions that it is not easy to choose cases from non-cases as he faced the same

problem during his dissertation, where he could not decide which policies to consider from

hundreds of relevant ones. He points out that the trick involves identifying the improbable

concepts, most of which form part of the non-cases against the narrower subsets of potential
cases. Importantly, there may be no wrong cases because one researcher's non-case might be

another's case, and both would be fine depending on the subject of the empirical work.

Which logic of comparison?

The logic of comparison, according to Klotz, enables researchers to choose which cases to

compare against which using which comparison methods. While research on sciences such as

physics deduces hypotheses from deduction followed by statistical testing, others like chemistry

prefer focused comparison, while social sciences are more associated with general claims. In this

section, he suggests three key questions researchers should consider when choosing analytical

assumptions.

Does the study seek to test theories?

The author argues that failure to use terms such as "variables" or "hypothesis" does not

disqualify a research study from having testable theories, as theoretical testing can lead to fruitful

engagements. He gives examples of variables such as gender, which have been omitted from

literature, and their addition revolutionized research, according to Goertz. Therefore, scholars

should not compare cases based only on terminologies.

Are causal claims made in terms of conditions or mechanisms?

This sub-section raises questions about correlation and causation and how case study researchers

early follow causal links across cases to explain patterns and other developments. However, it

argues that even the easiest analytical methods have disadvantages as they can be scaled up and

down, providing unending alternatives. Additionally, causal chains leave out contestation and
likelihood because the presence or absence of elements are not the only alternatives to the

argument.

Are constitutive claims adequately distinguished from causal ones?

Here, Klotz retaliates that even social science causal claims focus on some multifaceted

conjunctures. Therefore, researchers should be aware of arguments that do not follow the causal

chain but are constitutive. He uses Goertz's explanation that concepts center on fundamental

constitutive elements of a research problem (Klotz & Prakash, 2008). Constitutive arguments or

claims may treat dependent variables in a causal claim as independent variables, but this does not

or should not change the research questions because treating constitutive claims as probabilistic

or provisional ties them to causal chains. If researchers use logic instead of labels.

Complementary comprehension is possible, thereby putting pluralism into practice in case

selection.

Single case studies

The chapter delves into single case studies, which, according to the author, arise when some

things do not align with existing knowledge and theories, causing an empirical puzzle to be

solved. He gives an example of his dissertation where he was puzzled by the fact that Zimbabwe

spoke against South Africa's apartheid even when they had so much to lose (Klotz & Prakash,

2008). This conflict led to the realization that the realist theories of international relations, such

as the balance of power and sovereignty, did not accurately explain every phenomenon in the

field. In cases where single cases fall into more than one category, they can test theories, but this

is not always direct because sometimes an easy theoretical case may be difficult to test. In
contrast, another case considered impossible to test theoretically is effortlessly tested. The author

insists that simple cases should not be confused with plausible inquiry because a single empirical

evidence may have more than one theoretical inference of varying significance. Another area

where single cases may be confused with plausible inquiry is the "least likely" scenario, but the

interaction between evidence and theory sets them apart.

Paired comparisons

Positivists who want to test hypotheses use paired comparisons, including "within case"

comparisons where the researcher explores a single case under different contexts and time

frames. However, unless there is a shift in the independent variable, the case cannot be

considered a paired comparison because there are no substantial changes that the researcher can

track over time. Here, the author questions the independence of paired cases because each

depends on the theoretical implications of the other. Also, there is the question of how far back

in the historical context a researcher should go in making the comparisons. For example, in the

author's study about apartheid, it could be said that his case of the emergency of a new global

norm of antiracism is a paired comparison when studied continuously to check for any changes

and how they influence the results. Still, paired comparisons mostly present solo research

insights and evidence that might be superficial, limiting the credibility of paired comparisons.

More-than-Two but Not-a-Lot

The last type of case in this chapter is more than two but not a lot, some of which start as

empirical puzzles, just like in the single cases. While there are no rules to the number of cases a

researcher can use, the author explains that it only makes sense to focus on a few cases that most

affect the subject of study. For example, he focused on three cases only out of scores of possible
ones but again acknowledged that it is not easy to number or determine the number of cases in a

study. This is because the communities chosen represented a working cooperation against racism

in South Africa, each encompassing other actors(Klotz & Prakash, 2008). Therefore, if the

research focused on decision-making rather than regime theories, the cases should be counted as

six instead of three. The chapter encourages researchers not to be comfortable with single case

studies because they lack analytical content, which is present in more than two cases, although

difficult to choose. A suggestion to researchers on dealing with the confusion that arises in

choosing the relevant cases is remaining aware of core questions and theoretical framework that

result in sound deductions.

Conclusion

The chapter concludes by summing up the relevance and credibility of each case, starting from

single to more than two, but not a lot. The author mentions that he grew up among chemists and

understands and appreciates single-case research done in laboratories. However, he argues that

research goes beyond the human-populated laboratories into the social field because humans are

not molecules where their reactions could be watched over time. Today, scholars understand the

value and implication of single case studies more than they did 20 years ago, and thus more

acceptance and less criticism. The author now draws attention to the chaotic more than two

cases, which still trouble researchers as they seek to address different empirical questions.

Guiding Questions
Reference

Klotz, A., & Prakash, D. (2008). Qualitative methods in international relations: A pluralist

guide. Palgrave Macmillan.