The methodology used in this research is qualitative since it attempts to describe and understand models of power and their applications in human terms rather than through quantification and measurement and will allow for the study of models of power amongst women leaders in depth and in detail (Stake 2010; Terre Blanche, Kelly &
Durheim 2007a; Venkatesh, Brown & Bala 2013). Terre Blanche et al. (2007a: 272)
134
state that “quantitative research makes sense in situations where we know what the variables are, and are able to devise reasonable ways of controlling or measuring them.”
The notion of power and its application by leaders is not an easily quantifiable phenomenon, nor is it able to be controlled. Furthermore the aim of this study is to uncover variables that may not have been articulated previously, since the majority of empirical studies in relation to leadership have been conducted amongst men (Jamieson 1995; Mauthner & Edwards 2010). Venkatesh et al. (2013: 22) state that in the field of applied psychology qualitative methods are often preferred because they “involve studying the emotive and cognitive aspects of participants’ life experiences interpreted within the context of their socially constructive worldviews”. This study of women and power aims to uncover models of power that are constructed from the life experiences of women leaders and manifest in their narrative discourse within an organisational leadership context.
The use of a qualitative framework may often be undervalued in a management context, since it is regarded as less ‘scientific’ than quantitative research (Alldred &
Miller 2007). However, this reflects a set of prevailing assumptions associated with the paradigm of business and management and it is for this reason, as highlighted in the literature review, that a qualitative approach is necessary to allow women to speak to their experiences on their own terms (Jamieson 1995; Mauthner & Edwards 2010).
Qualitative research has become a more widely used method in the social sciences and medical research settings (Ponterotto 2013; Terre Blanche et al. 2007a) and has steadily been gaining ground in business and management in recent years (Sinkovics & Adolfi 2012). Silverman (2010: 9) claims that “the quantitative/ qualitative debate should not focus on which methodology is better or even more appropriate, but rather on which methodology is most suited to the question being researched”. Feminists have tended to favour qualitative research methods as they allow the opportunity for alternative voices and theory construction to those that dominate modernist views on truth, knowledge and langauge (Burman 2011; Dickerson 2013; Gergen 2001).
Wertz, Charmaz, McMullen, Josselson, Anderson & McSpadden (2011) point out that scientific research has benefited from the application of intuition throughout history.
While qualitative research uses the researcher’s intuition, it also draws from a vast array of conceptual and theoretical principles that have been in continuous development since
135
as early as the 1890’s (Wertz et al. 2011). As with any research methodology, qualitative research needs to meet with rigorous, critical standards (Silverman 2010).
However, these may be based on a different set of assumptions to those that are typically applied to a quantitative study. These assumptions are outlined in the discussion of this chapter.
6.2.1 Social Constructionism
The specific qualitative paradigm used in this research is social constructionism. Social constructionism originated from the postmodernist movement in sociology approximately thirty years ago (Andrews 2012). The post-modernist era was characterised by doubt in the way in which observations were an accurate reflection of the world being observed and constructionism was a response to this questioning of
‘objective reality’(Andrews 2012; Derrida 1997; Foucault 1982; Gergen 2001; Hosking
& Morley 2004; Ponterotto 2013). Young and Collin (2004) distinguish between
‘constructivism’ which proposes that each individual mentally constructs a world of experience with ‘social constructivism’ which has a societal, rather than an individual focus. Hosking and Morley (2004: 318) describe social constructionism as a theoretical framework which emphasises “the constructive power of human minds and their origins in conversations, conventions and cultural traditions.” Rather than aiming to homogenise multiple experience through application of statistics or consensus building, social constructionist research aims to generate multiplicity (Chang, Combs & Dolan 2012; Gavey 2011; Hosking & Morley 2004). Social constructionism emerged as a postmodern method of research which attempts to appreciate the nature of reality as multiple, rather than single and quantifiable (Terre Blanche et al. 2007a) and unfolding through narratives rather than converging around predetermined solutions (Chang et al.
2012).
According to Schwandt (2003) constructionist research is similar to the interpretive approach of qualitative research in that it focusses on the process by which meanings are created, modified, sustained and negotiated. However, where the interpretive approach is interested in objectively trying to describe the subjective experience of feelings and meanings, social constructionist researchers are interested in the way in which talk is used to manufacture experiences, meanings, feelings and other societal
136
‘facts’ (Andrews 2012; Terre Blanche et al. 2007a). The interaction of individuals within society is central to social constructionism and the narratives they use to construct and reconstruct this subjective ‘reality’ are positioned within the wider social discourses or ‘cultural stories’ (Andrews 2012; Dickerson 2013; Schwandt 2003). This is an ideological framework which is informed by postmodern thinking which is described extensively in the literature review as being concerned with how fragmented experiences are reflective of the greater whole (Foucault 1982; Hatch & Schultz 1997;
Gill 2010). It is also an ideology which is concerned with the inequity and oppression of real-world human interaction (Derrida 1997; Ponterotto 2013) which is appropriate for a study such as this. In first deconstructing orthodox views around knowledge and its production, social arrangements of oppression and hierarchies, social constructionists are able reconstruct human experience in ways that allow other voices to be heard and is understandable to other points of view (Jovanovic in Burman 1998)
6.2.2 Feminist Social Constructionism
Feminist psychologist Dickerson (2013) reveals how psychology practitioners working with relationships position themselves to attend to power and privilege by being attuned to the grand narratives that affect us all, such as patriarchy. These are the social discourses or ‘cultural stories’ which can recreate power dynamics within any relationship, including a research interview setting; organisational development intervention; as well as the organisation and society at large. A social constructionist approach is appropriate for the study of women and emerging models of power since it explores the multiple ways in which women construct power. The approach also invites questions that take us “beyond the surface of our culturally shared common sense understanding of the world” (Gavey 2011: 184). The research is interested in how women have incorporated the hegemonic models of power, which are informed by society, into their current leadership identities; as well as how they are reconstructing these identities in the present and into the future. Gavey (2011: 185) comments that:
“A feminist poststructuralist approach understands and forgives our obedience to dominant cultural norms and values….yet highlights the contingency of these norms. In doing so, it shines light on possibilities for being and acting otherwise – and for imaging more just and ethical conditions.”
137
While there has been steady growth of research and writing on women in management, the literature on feminist approaches to management and associated research methodologies is limited (Davidson & Burke 2004; Mauthner & Edwards 2010).
Feminist approaches to management are poorly researched and the understanding of the concept of ‘feminist management’ and its practices are underdeveloped (Mauthner &
Edwards 2010). Little empirical research exists in this area and where it does it usually focuses on personal and self-reflective accounts of feminist researchers in management positions (David & Woodward 1998; Eggins 1997). For this reason the social constructionist framework and the methodologies of discourse analysis of narrative texts applied to this study and discussed more fully in the rest of this chapter are more commonly found within the field of psychology studies. Applying these methodologies within a management context to a study concerned with the psychological construct of power and with a focus on transformation, has involved significant inter-disciplinary integration of both theory and methodology. This is one of the key contributions of this research to the current body of work in management studies.
As discussed in the literature review in chapter 3 on feminist perspectives of power, feminism itself has deep divisions and varied perspectives, and cannot be regarded as an umbrella term (Kenway 2001; Ledwith 2009; Moses 2012) Deem and Ozga (2000) coined the term ‘feminist managers’, describing them as women who enter organisations with the specific intention of implementing feminist practices and transforming institutions. However, not all women view themselves as feminists or manage with a feminist agenda (Edwards 2006). Furthermore, the notion of feminist management is still under construction and is conflicted over the tensions between identities of various brands of feminism; individual versus institutional identities; and the contradictory demands for collaboration and competition in our postmodern world (Geier 2013; Mauthner & Edwards 2010). Burman (2011) argues that it is “no longer tenable to describe feminist research as ‘for women, by women and with women’…as was the case in the early days of feminist research”. She claims that gender analysis applies to all social issues today and that management is no exception. Rather than than becoming concerned about empire building around different brands of feminism, Burman’s (1998) appeal since the late 1990’s has been to consider diverse and multiple forms of feminist research aimed at strengthening feminist interventions. As an African
138
feminist, Mama (2011) appeals to feminist researchers to collaborate and exchange views on research as well as “stay connected to movements in a way that will allow ideas to challenge power” (Mama 2011: 18) rather than remain in academic isolation.
My position as a feminist researcher and organisation development practitioner committed to facilitating transformation in organisations is discussed below as my own reflection on my role in this research and its broader aims and objectives.
6.2.3 Position of the Researcher
As a qualitative study within a social constructionist framework it is necessary to acknowledge the researcher’s position in relation to the research (Ponterotto 2013).
Cohen and Mallon (2001) claim that the researcher inevitably applies their judgement and perspective and while they should not be written out of the social world that they study, they should neither be lamented or obscured. While I have chosen to present the women’s data gathered through the interview in the analysis chapters (chapters 7, 8 and 9) without my interjections as they were relatively insignificant, I am including this section on my position as a researcher to ensure that my role is not concealed in this study. As a woman and an organisational development professional involved in the process of facilitating organisational transformation and leadership development, I have a number of agendas which I bring to this research which need to be highlighted to mitigate any distance I may claim to have from the women whom I interviewed.
While I initially hesitated to position this research as feminist per se, in engaging with the literature and the methodology it became clear to me that this was in fact a feminist study since its focus is on women and power which is at the heart of feminist debates.
In addition, the aim of my research is to contribute to the process of transformation in our business organisations by raising consciousness of the impact of patriarchal relationships on how women lead. I believe that I was probably conflicted over my own feminist identity given that the study was being conducted within a management context where the notion of ‘feminism’ is often misunderstood and alienating for many of my male and female colleagues. In addition the notion of feminism is riddled with contradictions in terms of my privilege as a white South African. My own experiences of what appeared to be ‘feminist’ behaviour within a corporate context I found unnatural and complicit with patriarchal notions of dominance. The research journey
139
has allowed me to more clearly define and construct my own social values in relation to the notion of power within an organisational context. This is necessary for social constructionist research where the “researcher’s own social justice values can and should play a role in the research process” (Ponterotto 2013: 21).
As an organisational development (OD) practitioner, working with transformation in organisational systems and observing some of the continuous challenges faced by women in leadership, another aim of the research is to provide insight into how to empower women to be able to take up their roles in organisations both effectively and authentically. This explicit aim is another characteristic of social constructionist research which typically manifests in the goal of the emancipation and empowerment of groups who experience oppression (Kincheloe & McLaren 2000). This is both an aim of my research and an area of practice both from the perspective of supporting individual women in taking up their leadership roles and in developing leadership capacity in organisations as a whole according to current leadership thinking (Lewis 2011; Thomas
& Silverstone 2012; Valerio 2009; Wheatley 2005; Yudelowitz et al. 2002). As this form of research acknowledges the ideological position of the researcher it also enables the researcher to critique the knowledge or models being constructed within that framework. This research is a critical analysis of the emerging models of power as it aims to understand how women’s models are both limiting and empowering them within the feminist framework of power and current theories of leadership as discussed in chapters 3 and 4.
As an OD practitioner and a facilitator of change I have found it necessary to become attuned to the language of individuals and organisations which both reflect and shape their thinking and behaviour. In this role I am required to be both aware of my own position and relationship with the individuals and the system, but also remain independent of the individuals and system to be able to create the space to generate learning and empowerment from conversations and interactions. A personal aim of this research journey has been the development of my understanding of and competence in qualitative methods which I am able to apply to my practice. I am aware that as an OD practitioner I may be an ‘outsider’ to the organisational system, but I am part of a broader social system, which does not necessarily mean that I am ‘neutral’ in my approach. Ponterotto (2013) argues that we need to move away from the dichotomous
140
thinking that the researcher is a totally independent entity in the research. It is both the feminist positioning of this research; my work both as an insider and outsider of organisational systems; and my observations of the power of organisational discourse as a vehicle for transformation that has resulted in my choice of method, namely discourse analysis, over and above another methodology. Another key characteristic of discourse analysis, according to Wertz (2011), is that analysts have an obligation to apply their research. This applied and action oriented approach to research lends itself to the field of OD practice. The method of discourse analysis and the rationale for its application to this study is discussed further in the following section.
6.3 Feminist Social Constructionism and the Method of Discourse Analysis