Chapter Four
4.1 Doing Research without Safety Nets!
In this chapter I provide a description of the research methods employed framing it within the undergirding principles that influenced and guided my thoughts, decisions and actions.
My discussion is infused with reflections on the implications of using an autobiographical, feminist approach in the design of my study into the problems facing women in academia and research. Prompted by my dilemma of what it means to do feminist research, to feminize research or democratise research, I found it extremely difficult to compartmentalise feminist theory, feminist politics, feminist methodology, feminist practice, feminist research - these categories are characterised by the fact that they all 'leak' into each other. It is for this reason that I sounded, very early in my writings (see Chapter One), my discomfort with the arbitrary separation I was making in developing a so-called theoretical framework for this study.
I echo the concern of Smith (1987), who states:
The problem [of a research project] and its particular solution are analogous to those by which fresco painters solved the problems of representing the different temporal moments of a story in the singular space of the wall. The problem is to produce in a two-dimensional space framed as a wall a world of action and movement in time. (p. 281)
Besides the problem of framing real life events in a two-dimensional space, I confronted the added problems of how the framing is being done and who is doing the framing
I reveal critical practices in my attempts to '(un)do' research, demonstrating how the use of my feminist organising principles or feminist 'gaze' initiates a process of destabilising or disrupting mainstream or 'male-stream' research. By so doing, I signal a shift from the conventional manner in which methodology chapters are usually framed.
During the course of this study I had perused a number of masters and doctoral studies and found that most tend to stick to the 'formula' of what is perceived to be scientific,
acceptable research methods and practice. My own work as advisor and referee, which involved the vetting of research proposals for the University of Durban-Westville as well as the National Research FoundationI ,has revealed that with very few exceptions, research in the humanities and social sciences proceeds in a 'business as usual' manner. I have always been struck by the lack of imagination, especially methodological imagination. A concern echoed by Jansen (1990) in his reflection on the lack of creativity, the will to cut loose, explore and conquer new frontiers, new territories, in the dissertations he has surveyed.
My concerns lie with the fact that most research still derives from an essentially positivist tradition that has dominated social science inquiry (Lee & Green, 1995). This type of research has traditionally been conducted within contexts that encourage a general absence of critical reflection on how or why realities are studied the way they are. If they are alluded to in the form of epistemological and theoretical questions being raised about methodological issues, they are usually divorced from the substantive issues and discussed in a vacuum as philosophical considerations (Eisner, 1996).
In much of the quantitative research literature, one finds information about designing questionnaires, strategies for interviewing, drawing samples and using secondary data sets.
Most of the literature grapples with issues concerning interaction of subjects, randomisation of data collection and data analysis. Little of it explores the role of the researcher's life histories in shaping of research designs. There is the presumption that surveys and other sources of statistical data yield objective results if the researcher follows certain technical procedures. Seldom are issues raised about the human faces and consciousness behind the development of such methodological tools and their outcomes (Huberman, 1993). However, the absence of critical reflection about methodology is not only attributed to the pervasiveness of positivism. Whether it is statistical tables or lengthy ethnographic excerpts, all are social and political constructs and are really ideologically determined and culturally biased productions of knowledge. The absence of a self-critical sensibility by researchers makes for lack-lustre research in many instances.
IThe former Centre for Science Development and the Foundation for Research and Development have now merged to form the National Research Foundation.
In recent years, the former Faculty of Education at the University of Durban-Westville, under the deanship of 10nathan lansen, has been producing a few dissertations that are noteworthy for their use of mixed genres. The study by Singh (1995) represented early attempts to conduct research without 'safety nets'. Her initial exploratory fieldwork amongst first-year University of Durban-Westville female students, regarding their experiences and aspirations, dictated the design of her larger masters' study. The studies of Samuel (1998) and Dhunpath (1997) on the other hand, whilst demonstrating the ability to draw from literary, artistic and scientific genre also begin to push the boundaries of each of these as well.
Potentially revealing knowledge about critical issues has been either lost or distorted because researchers have failed to reflect on the implications of, for example, their life histories and cultural backgrounds as ideological intrusions in the emotion-laden field of research. It is my concern about these issues that forces me to rethink traditional methodologies, disrupt the familiar or revise them and construct new ones that enable me to see a clearer picture or see the picture differently (Eisner, 1981).
Although I refer to a 'methodology', methodological issues are not the only issues at stake here. I find it extremely difficult to divorce mySelf from the questions, methods, and findings of my research and therefore believe that this 'kinship' not only be disclosed at all stages of the research, where appropriate, but be foregrounded wherever possible. This again signals a departure from the traditional ways in which research has been conducted and reported. I bring to the centre my identity as the researcher rather than subscribing to the idea of a neutral, faceless researcher. I turn into text that which is usually considered the subtext of research. This is a conscious attempt to undo, subvert, disrupt and destabilise mainstream or male-stream thinking, coercing new and different possibilities. Even the style of writing slips between the formal voice of research and the experimental conversational, colloquial, informally punctuated rhythms of everyday speech. Placing myself at the centre of inquiry grounds this research in who I am, it relates the professional to the personal through this engagement.