Is it possible for men to carry out valid feminist research?

[AgentZigzag]

I just came across this article, which said it's wrong to ask the question of whether men can carry out feminist research because it's desirable for men to carry out anit-patriarchal and pro-feminist research, but if it proves difficult for them 'they must hand over control of the design and carrying out of 'their' research to the critical reference group of women'.

'No doubt, feminist research is research ?on? women, ?for? women, ?about women? but not only by women.'

Why encourage men to be involved in feminist research for reasons of equality, but advise the design and data gathering to women?

That's not equality is it?

If men are deemed fit to carry out feminist research then they're fit to carry it out aren't they?

You don't have to have first hand experience of a subject in order to research it, so are women a necessary constituent of valid feminist research?

(just to clarify without directing how posters can answer, I'm aware the article can be ripped to pieces critically evaluated, but I was more interested in the ideas it put forward rather than what evidence those ideas rest on IYSWIM)

Oops, posted instead of previewed, 'scuse the typos

I don't think all feminist research is about women.

Robert Jensen has said that a lot of universities will focus teaching on the experiences of oppressed groups but not on the experiences of the oppressing group. There is very little discussion on what it feels like to belong to a group that does the oppressing or how they behave amongst themselves to enable that oppression.

I think some men could be very well equipped to carry out feminist research because they have a lot of insight into what it means to be a man and how men as a group behave and organise themselves.

I am sure that most of us as women also belong to another group that hold certain sorts of power. I would like more research carried out into how those groups operate because it would give me greater understanding of how to change the situation rather than just making it out it was a bad thing or constantly discussing the behaviour and responses of the group who were oppressed.

While as women we have to work to get rid of misogyny, that doesn't mean that how misogyny happens can be fully understood by reference by us to our lives.

I think that a man can of course collate information on feminism, he could research statistics and publish papers based on those facts.

he cannot though opine about feminism as whilst he may be sympathetic to the "cause" he cannot possibly truly understand what it is like to be the "weaker sex" in a patriarchal society.
imho

It's a bit like me, a heterosexual woman writing information on th eeffects of homophobia on gay men. Whilst i could interview and have empathy for what they must surely go through, i can't tell them how they should feel or how best to deal with it. iyswim.

I am a man and have done academic research at a high level. Not feminist research but my research methods, statistical tests and presentation of my findings in the form of research papers always had to be reviewed by peer group researchers before it could be published.

Academic research is reviewed 'blind' and it either passes fit for publication or it doesn't. The sex of the researcher never comes into it. I don't see why feminist research should be any different.

Valar - positing an opinion is not academic research. Forming a theory and then testing it is what academic research is about - not just writing your untested opinions down.

'this may prove difficult for men'?

Is this a sixth-form essay?

That's what I wanted to avoid joan, it may well be a sixth-form essay I can't make it out, but it's the ideas that interested me rather than the credibility of the author.

"However, there are other male researchers who are totally biased and try enforcing patriarchy through their findings."

That is quite a strong assertion and not backed up by any references or research evidence.

That's interesting Beta, how does the funding usually work with research?

Do you approach whoever's funding it with an idea, or do they define what they want researched and set about finding researchers?

I'm just thinking about how that might shape what research subjects get onto the agenda.

But what difficulty is the author talking about? Why difficult for men? At what point should the difficulty be considered a barrier to continuing with research? In what universe is a person going to hand over their (for example) PhD project to somebody else, saying 'sorry this is just too hard due to my testosterone levels - you finish it?'

It's the quality of the ideas, or lack of, that means I don't really want to engage with it.

Agent - usually, funding is allocated in broad thematic areas by research funding bodies. Researchers then make proposals and these are selected by an appraising group.

Once the researcher has the money there is no dictation of what papers must be written or where they must be published. The papers are typically not submitted to the funding body for approval before publication either.

I thought the author was talking about 'sensitive issues' when they said it would be difficult for men to collect data joan.

For example, if the researcher wanted to ask women about their experiences of being judged credible witnesses by a jury in court concerning rape allegations, some women may not feel comfortable talking to a man about what's happened to them.

One point I would fully agree with is this:

"In the beginning, respondents were curious to know the purpose of the study and the benefits they will be getting by giving interviews which was followed by question in some cases on author?s sex. As they were of the opinion that it is generally the woman who conducts research on women. It can be said that the biggest challenge males? face is in the rapport building with the respondents and once it is built then the process of research is smooth till any personal question specifically related to sexual behavior is posed."

It is perfectly understandable that in a culture where women are not used to being alone with a strange man or where the subjects may have been abused by men, a male researcher may face significant difficulties in executing research that involves face-to-face interviews. It is highly likely his sex would affect the answers the women gave. This kind of inadvertent potential bias is one that all social science researchers are well aware of and the data collection process might have to be done by anonymous questionnaire or by female research assistants in those cases.

Agent - x-posted with your last post.

I didn't read the piece.

I can understand that a man might have trouble collecting data about things like rape. Or accessing communities where women aren't allowed to talk to men they are not related to. Or discussing FGM. Or first sexual experiences with a view to understanding about whether coercion is common. That type of stuff I can see a difficulty in collecting data.

Thanks Beta.

What's the goal regarding the their choice of research do you know? I mean, apart from the research findings, is it to get it published? Get citations? Or would they be working on behalf of employers?

Just ignore if I'm asking too many questions I've always wondered there's a driving force behind research 'knowledge', or whether it's just a random generation of subjects as and when they turn up.

all xposts!

If you are a career academic working in a university your absolute goal is to get published in the very highest ranked journals. It affects your future promotion and the kind of institutions that might wish to recruit you.

It would probably useful for somebody with a background in anthropology to answer the questions raised on the thread. There is a lot in research designs for anthropology about the behaviour of the researcher and how they interact with the people who are being studied and this informs the methodology. That could be applied to a lot of research situations within the context of our society.

I can see a difficulty in asking the right questions.

If you're not aware of what the actual lived experience of women is (because women tend not to tell men everything and our experience isn't usually accurately or often portrayed in the wider media), how do you know what questions to ask? Research is as much about asking the right questions, as getting insightful answers.

But I'm not an academic so know FA about it.

It really boils down to power, doesn't it? One of the main tenets of feminist research is that the researched maintain a more equal power relation to the researcher than that usually seen - so the researched can shift the focus, rather than it being dictated by the researcher, if it seems pertinent to the discussion

So if a male researcher is directing his participants, that leads to problems.

There are also an awful lot of academics who believe that purist feminist research is only by women, with female participants, about female subjects, so of course the male researcher would automatically rule that the research is not feminist in nature with no further discussion.

I'm really just bookmarking as this is a pet interest of mine . I'm currently writing up a student project where I'm attempting to argue that we carried out feminist research despite one of the researchers being male and the subject (although gender and very much minority focused) was not in fact concerning natal females entirely. Or if not successfully arguing that the research was 'feminist' then claiming it followed the tenets of feminist research, and that this is advisable when dealing with all minority groups and sensitive subjects... Which doesn't seem anywhere near as controversial...

That would preclude female researchers from researching mens experiences though Basil.

Can't see that going down too well

I hadn't read the article btw. I've flicked through it now, and think the writer just needs to read some basic field methods texts which will answer half of the ramblings quite satisfactorily. It's perpetrating longstanding issues as gendered (presumably purposefully) which is oversimplifying in the extreme. Meh.

I guess reporting bias is one of the biggest problems in sociological research and there might be an argument be made that the gender of the researcher might impact on the data collection.

But if a man can't do the write-up/data interpretation objectively due to ingrained bias, then a woman can't do it either - as a woman would have a similar bias problem. So the suggestion that she'd be better/more objective is risible. Actually letting your own experiences influence the interpretation of your research is exactly what you want to avoid

Good research should try and adjust for bias or try and find ways of precluding it from colouring the interpretation, hence e.g. double blind randomised controlled trials being the gold standard in medical research. I guess it's not as easy if at all possible to blind studies in any social sciences.

outofbody "So if a male researcher is directing his participants, that leads to problems." - But wouldn't the same be true if a female researcher directed her participant?

I have a feeling that feminist research has an inherent bias in that it generally carried out by women and generally with female subjects (please feel free to correct me).

I don't know how much feminist research focuses on men as subjects but it seems to me that male researchers would bring a diversification of viewpoint in a research team.

In my own research team we had a historian, a philosopher, an economist a geologist and statistician. We all were interested in the same topic but had different approaches and points of view and hopefully both stimulated each other as well as questioned our personal biases.

There is a real danger of 'Group Think' in all research fields.