99

99

3. Chapter Three: Reflections on issues of power, participationand representation in the research experience.

“The personal is political” (Carol Hanisch1971)

3.1 Introduction

This chapter explores the feminist epistemological and methodological

approaches that have influenced this study. As well, I detail and evaluate the

methods used in data collection. A reflexive examination of my struggles with

issues of positionality, power and representation runs through this discussion. As

Annecka Marshall (1994, 115) wrote, the “researcher’s autobiography frequently

influences the choice of a research topic as well as the process of doing research”.

Thus, the personal and political issues that arose in this study, primarily because

of the shifting roles that I performed as researcher and research participant, need

to be acknowledged. Here, I am guided by Ribbins and Edwards (1998, 162) view

that “reflexivity involves being explicit about the operation of power within the

actual process of researching and representing people”.

As noted earlier, my quest for a better understanding of my negotiations with

notions of ethnicity, femininity and belonging provided the catalyst for this study.

Moving from my own experiences to observing and interrogating those of my

sisters, female extended-family members and Indo-Trinidadian female friends

was the first phase of (informally) trying to find similarities and differences

among young Indo-Trinidadian women along age, generational, class and

100

100

religious lines. Then, when I began formal research, I hoped this study would

enable me to expand the net of young women participating in such conversations,

build a sense of their collective experience, and bring new insights about our

negotiations, self-image and aspirations. Ultimately, I hoped that the research

process, by validating young women’s experiences and insights1 and providing a

non-judgmental space outside of their intimate circle, could be empowering for

the participants.

3.2 Defining feminist research

My initial, personal goals were challenged and refined by the feminist approach

that I brought to the study. This approach strongly shaped what I sought to know,

how I tried to gather information and the critical perspectives that I emphasized in

the research process. Why a feminist approach? Susan Geiger (1990, 169), in her

essay “What’s so feminist about women’s oral history?”, built on earlier writings

by feminist scholars (Mies 1983; Harding 1987a; Caplan 1988; Hill Collins 1990;

Neilson 1990; Gorelick 1991; Bhavnani 1993 to name a few) who argued that

feminist researchers have a responsibility to produce work that is critical of the

androcentrism in academic studies, theories and methodologies. Similarly, Kelly 1 For example, while we chatted throughout an interview, I would sometimes mention howacademic studies that I read might interpret or contextualise a perspective or narrative beingoffered by a young woman. In this way, I tried to tie their personal experiences to largerconceptual issues about continuity and change, regulation of girls’ bodies etc. I would ask themwhat connections they saw. In one interview, for example, a 24 year-old Hindu woman wasdescribing parents’ antagonism toward interracial marriage. “Why do you think they feel thatway?” I asked. In our discussion, I mentioned some of the literature I had read about the way Indo-Trinidadian female bodies are seen as part of Indo-Trinidadian male domain. She agreed andimmediately began to talk about links between more general views about Indo-Trinidadianwomen, sexuality and gender inequality and we explored these connections for a while beforereturning to her narrative. In such small ways, I tried to bring young women into the theorizingprocess. This approach was influenced by the writings of bell hooks (1989) and Patricia HillCollins (1990).

101

101

(1988) distinguished feminist research by “the questions we have asked, the way

we locate ourselves within our questions, and the purpose of our work”.

Maria Mies (1979, 2) argued that feminist scholars cannot uncritically use a

positivist, quantitative methodology which privileges Eurocentric male bias for a

value free, non-reciprocal, neutral, uninvolved and hierarchical relationship

between researchers and research ‘objects’. Instead, she suggested that

researchers develop a “conscious partiality” or partial identification with the

researched individuals and groups and see them as ‘subjects’ and researchers in

their own lives (ibid, 6). Like many feminist scholars, and those in other

disciplines such as anthropology, Hill Collins (1990, 205) also critiqued

positivism and the scientific method. She argued that they

require a distancing of the researcher from her orhis “object” of study by defining the researcher as a“subject” with full human subjectivity and byobjectifying the “object” of study…A secondrequirement is the absence of emotions from theresearch process...Third, ethics and values aredeemed inappropriate in the research process, eitheras the reason for scientific inquiry or as part of theresearch process itself…

Thus, maintaining a critical perspective sustains feminist researchers’ ties to the

politics and praxis of the women’s movement (and some would argue to

particularly female ways of knowing and relating). As Joyce Neilson (1990, 6)

wrote, feminist research is “contextual, inclusive, experiential, involved, socially

relevant…complete but not necessarily replicable, inclusive of emotions and

events as experienced”.

102

102

3.2.1 Evolving epistemological and methodological issues in feminist research

Methodology constitutes the theory and analysis of how research should proceed

(Harding 1987a). It is inextricably linked to epistemology and is based on and

guided by what we think we can and should know about a subject and the means

through which this information can best be gathered (ibid, 3). Second wave

feminist scholars criticized the androcentric bias in scholarship for keeping some

areas of research invisible or ignored (Mies 1979, 4). They began reaching into

previously unstudied areas of women’s lives, often exploring themes that

overlapped with their own experiences (Smith 1987). Thus, early feminist work,

particularly in the social sciences and humanities, was characterized by efforts to

“put women into history”, reclaim ‘herstory’ and to produce research that focused

on women’s experiences and perspectives. With a growing emphasis on gender

studies, more feminist work came to examine the complex and layered nature of

gendered power relations from different standpoints.

With increasing numbers of non-White, working class women entering

universities, a reflexive debate grew about the power relations within feminist

academia that determined who did research, who was researched, the kinds of

research done and how it was interpreted. From this perspective, the scientific

method was critiqued for the way it distanced, for example, female, Black,

working class and Third World researchers from themselves, indigenous ways of

knowing and the means of collective empowerment.

103

103

Drawing from anthropology, ethnographic methods such as participant

observation, oral histories and semi-structured interviews were thought to offer

feminist researchers greater possibilities for conducting involved, contextual and

reciprocal research. However, the perspective that such methods benefited

research participants by making them feel important and increasing their self-

esteem was criticized for relying on researchers’ unproven assumptions and

perspectives (Wolf 1996, 24). Others questioned whether these methods could be

described as “feminist”. In fact, critiques of positivist methodology and focus on

qualitative methods were not only coming from feminist scholarship, but from

traditional disciplines such as anthropology and sociology. Ensuing

epistemological and methodological debates have pushed feminist researchers to

articulate the politics defining their epistemology and methodology, to

consciously recognize their own positionality and the implications of their power,

and to be aware of bias and partiality in their interpretations. These ethical and

political debates about who can know, what can be known, and ways of knowing

were shaping the epistemological contours of a feminist methodology.

3.2.2 Marking the contours of a feminist methodology

Ethical and political considerations are also at the heart of Maria Mies’ (1979,

1983) approach to a “methodology for women’s studies”. She advocated that

emancipatory social theory should take a “view from below” (see also Hooks

1984) which serves the interests of dominated groups and should be connected to

active participation in struggles for social change. Theorizing about the contours

104

104

of feminist methodology, Mies argued that “consciousness-raising” and

empowerment through approaches such as “action research” should be considered

integral to academic work (see also Cook and Fonow 1986). This perspective has

been critiqued for its implied assumption that feminist academics are more

conscious of the power relations in women’s lives than the women themselves

(Gorelick 1991, 467). In her introductory essay “Situating feminist dilemmas in

fieldwork”, Diane Wolf (1996) also noted how this kind of “passionate

scholarship” (Mies 1983, 124 – 126), involving political or social activism, can be

demanding, time consuming, unrewarding and difficult. Nonetheless, the

empowering, participatory and emancipatory potential of feminist research

continues to be emphasized and debated. These debates influenced my own

approach to the young women participating in this study. Further in this chapter, I

critically discuss some of my own attempts at consciousness-raising through

workshops I facilitated in schools.

In her influential text Black Feminist Thought, Patricia Hill Collins (1990)

highlighted the “insider-outsider” status of African-American female academics

researching their own communities. Her critique is comparable to Mies (1979, 4-

5) who argued that women’s experience of sex-based oppression, but privilege as

feminist academics brings a double consciousness which should be integrated into

the research process and seen as a “methodological and political chance”.

However, Hill Collins suggested that a Black feminist perspective only partially

overlaps with the methodological critiques of a (Eurocentric) women’s

105

105

movement. Emphasizing how her experiences as African-American and female

influenced her sense of self, Hill Collins saw her work as a search for personal

and collective voice for African-American women. This led her to explore a black

women’s standpoint, black feminist consciousness, core themes in black women’

lives and alternative sites for articulation of these themes through an

epistemological framework which valued black feminist perspectives as

“subjugated knowledge” (1990, 202, 227-229). Thus, in her framework, she

incorporated the everyday experiences of African-American women, affirmed

‘the concrete’ as a source for validation of knowledge and recognized the

importance of dialogue to the articulation of consciousness.

Throughout this study, the roles of researcher and researched blurred in ways

comparable to Hill Collins’ “insider-outsider” experience. As I was a part of the

age and ethnic group being studied, and shared gender, generational and popular

cultural interests, I had to be especially attentive to times when one role intruded

into the other. There were times with family or friends when my researcher’s gaze

would turn on and times when my own experiences and place within the Indo-

Trinidadian community could colour my interpretations. Thus, shifting

researcher/researched identities were part of the research experience of

academically and personally examining issues of selfhood and voice among

young Indo-Trinidadian women.

106

106

However, Mies’ concept of double consciousness and Hill-Collin’s insider-

outsider dichotomy, describing the dual and sometimes incompatible worlds of

female and non-White/‘of colour’ academics, is problematised by the internal

heterogeneity of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’. Some query whether these ‘pure’

categories exist at all. Standpoint theory and positionality inform these

epistemological approaches. Standpoint theory argues that female researchers’

“embodied subjectivity” – their own knowledge and experience – is crucial for

fully understanding and developing critical insights into a group or community’s

self-knowledge and experience of oppression (Wolf 1996, 13-14). For example,

Uma Narayan (1989, 263) posited that there is a greater possibility of shared

understanding when the researcher and researched share positionality as an

oppressed group. However, it is also possible that ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ can

access different information and confidences (Tixier y Vigil and Elsasser 1976).

Also, Hsiung (1996) and Zavella (1996) argued that shared positionality may

make it difficult for the researcher to critically ‘air the dirty laundry’.

In a 1999 interview with Halima Kassim2, she noted that her personal location

within an Islamic community in Trinidad enabled her to more intricately represent

its internal workings and functions. However, her ‘private’ network of

community, family and friendship ties, and accompanying duties and obligations,

often tangled with her ‘public’ role as researcher. Sometimes, she would clarify

information in an interview, but wonder whether it was too private to publish

2 Kassim, Halima Sa’adia. 1999. “Education, Community Organisations and Gender Among theIndo-Muslims of Trinidad: 1917 – 1962”. Ph.D Thesis: The University of the West Indies, St.Augustine

107

107

given the community’s dominant discretionary codes. She was aware that

exposing private aspects of women’s lives could have repercussions for the

women, their families or herself. While ‘writing up’, Kassim felt that her intimacy

with her community enabled her to contextualise her information and determine

the ‘appropriateness’ of leaving some stories submerged. In this way, the

subjective positionality of researchers can influence their choices about what

standpoint to represent and what kinds of information to expose to ‘outsiders’.

Critics of standpoint theory also claimed that it justifies a “hierarchy of insight”

that privileges the perspective of ‘most’ oppressed instead of seeing it as one

representation among many. Reinharz (1992, 260) argued that this “epistemology

of insiderness” overlooked differences that are crucial to power relations between

researcher and researched. In my own study, for example, I may share ‘insider’

status on the basis of race, language, age and gender, but as I am both Trinidadian

and Canadian, my nationalities and the privileges they afford me are different. At

times, my knowledge and practice of Indo-Trinidadian culture and even my

upbringing differed widely from that of the research participants. As well, very

few of the young women in the study shared my academic background. In this

sense, a hierarchy existed because I was “studying down”3.

3 Interestingly, my few interviews with Indo-Trinidadian community and religious elders providedsome insight to “studying up’. For example, I was far more conscious of how I dressed, talked,questioned these interviewees and presented my background and myself. Unlike in my interviewswith young women, I almost always wore “Indian clothes”s such as a salwaar kameez. In thesesituations, my age, generational difference, desire to show respect and need to get informationshaped the power dynamic between interviewer and interviewee and the interview process. In theface of older “leaders”, my researcher identity carried far less authority and expectations based onmy age, ethnicity and gender faced me. Older (particularly Muslim and Hindu) interviewees oftenasked about my family (whom they sometimes knew) and about my religion. This was clearly to

108

108

At first, my perspective really centred on my ‘insider’ status – what I shared as a

unmarried, young, Indo-Trinidadian woman with other women in this group.

However, over time, I also became more aware of our differences. There was a

constant flux in commonalities and differences between the young women being

interviewed and myself, and the significance of these altered depending on the

person and the information being shared. Clearly, sharing a common racial/ethnic

background is only partially binding. Perhaps, instead of seeing one’s standpoint

as fixed, it is useful to view positionality in relational terms without privileging

one particular position over another.

There has been a great deal of writing by ‘insiders’ about their mixed feelings and

experiences during fieldwork (Abu-Lughod 1988 and 1991; Altorki 1988; Kondo

1986; Ladner 1987; Narayan 1989, 226; Lal 1996; Matsumoto 1996; Ribbins and

Edwards 1998). In fact, many of these ‘indigenous’ researchers felt they fit in

several places at once in the ‘insider-outsider’ binary because of their class,

cultural, rural/ urban backgrounds, language differences and western university

schooling. Often, this led to complex ethical issues of trust, honesty, reciprocity

and representation in the research process.

assess what kind of young woman I was in terms of morality and piety. I saw this as an exercise ofpower and control as they also felt they were authorities on Hindu, Muslim and Indo-Trinidadianculture and this evaluation immediately placed me back within a framework of community andbelonging – according to their boundaries. Thus, I was always particularly careful not to engendertheir disapproval and risk their cooperation. I was especially polite, professional and deferential inthese interviews. In comparison, in my interviews with young women, I dressed casually andchatted more informally.

109

109

Donna Haraway (1991, 195) presented an alternative to standpoint theory’s

“politics and epistemology of location”. Haraway’s alternative emphasized

“situating, location and positioning” (Wolf 1996, 14). “Situated knowledges”

reflect “locationality” in terms of the researcher’s place in a historical, national or

generational context. As well, they acknowledge positionality and the way that

one’s race, gender, class, nationality and sexuality affect one’s viewpoints and the

production of knowledge. Unlike standpoint theory, this perspective advocated

that researchers acknowledge their location and its effect on the(ir) production of

knowledge without privileging any one “partial” position (Haraway 1991, 11;

Bhavnani 1991, 97 – 98). Wolf (1996, 14) posited,

This approach goes beyond a binary disc of the“haves” (insiders) and the “have-nots” (outsiders),which is a natural outcome of standpoint theory andencourages us to think in terms of multipleperspectives and mobile subjectivities, of forgingcollaborations and alliances and juxtaposingdifferent viewpoints.

3.2.3 Focusing on the “quality of relations”

Rather than positionality, Kirin Narayan (1993, 671 – 673) argued for greater

focus on “quality of relations” and emphasized the researchers’ personality,

openness, willingness to listen and ability to empathize (Wolf 1996, 17). She

articulated the strand of thinking that rejects the overused insider-outsider

dichotomy and argued that factors such as gender, class, sexual orientation, race

and duration of contact may “outweigh the cultural identity we associate with

insider-outsider status” (Narayan 1993, 672).

110

110

These debates focusing on issues of ethics and representation in different

methodologies are particularly relevant for researchers studying their own

communities. As Diane Wolf summarized (1996, 2), the most central dilemma for

feminist research is power. Power relations manifest in conceptualization,

fieldwork and writing up stages of the research process. Although research

participants are certainly not powerless agents in the research process (see

Dorinne Kondo 1986), they are more vulnerable to exploitation and mis-

representation.

Feminist scholars attempting to deal with power relations in the research process

have raised several considerations about the quality of relationships built between

researcher and research participants. For example, feminist researchers debated

whether forming a more ‘friendship-like’ rapport with research participants can

address some of the issues around hierarchy and exploitation. Attempts to create

this kind of rapport have included having the researcher answer questions asked

by the research participant and volunteering information about herself in a more

conversational manner (Oakley 1990), a ‘speaker-centred approach’ letting the

participant take the lead in deciding what to reveal about herself (Patai 1988a, 10;

Abu-Lughod 1986; Tsing 1993), and encouraging a more dialogic interaction

rather than a question and response format (Wolf 1996, 19). However, scholars

such as Jane Ribbins (1989) have questioned how much we truly know about

participants’ feelings of being interviewed. In her study on the social construction

of Black female sexuality, Annecka Marshall (1994, 115) reflexively wrote,

111

111

Through learning from their rich range ofexperiences my own thoughts about my sexualityand my identity as a Black woman have beenchallenged in numerous ways. They are not justresearch subjects but rather they are friends, sisters,mothers…

Judith Stacey (1991, 114) critiqued this kind of relationship and argued that

‘friendship’ between researcher and researched can actually be more manipulative

because it enables the researcher to access private data as a ‘friend’ who

nonetheless always maintains her academic power. In fact, empathy and

friendship do not transform a researcher’s positionality or location (Wolf 1996,

20) and scholars such as Daphne Patai (1991) argue that inherent hierarchies and

subject-object dichotomies cannot truly be evaded.

While research participants may access benefits, help, advice and a sense of

confidentiality, ‘friendship’ and familiarity enable the researcher to access

information by playing a different role. This creates ample room for the hidden

consciousness of the researcher to manipulate the ‘friendship’ for greater

information. The issue remains unresolved, but extremely important for

Caribbean researchers studying and theorizing the generational, national, ethnic or

religious communities to which they belong. It seems necessary to develop an

indigenous, reflexive ethic to guide research about ourselves where the

boundaries between researcher and personal ‘friendships’ may blur. Nonetheless,

experiences over the course of the research process compelled me to support

112

112

Patai’s position. I found that developing ‘friendships’ with research participants,

and including friends as research participants, to be extremely problematic.

Unacknowledged power is particularly relevant for the ‘writing up’ stage in the

research process “in which the other is inscribed within, and explained by, the

power of the ethnographer’s language” (Ribbens and Edwards 1998, 153).

Feminist researchers have attempted to deal with this in by sharing results, co-

authoring texts with research participants (Billson 1991; Mbilinyi 1989) and

increasingly acknowledging that texts are “constructed” domains of truth and

“serious fictions” (Clifford 1988, 10; Geiger 1990, 178). Other researchers have

tried sharing their interview transcripts for participants’ corrections or

suggestions, but this has not always left participants feeling empowered (Boreland

1991, 70). In fact, it can make them feel as if the interpretation of their story took

it out of their hands and changed its meaning (Boreland 1991; Acker, Barry and

Esseveld 1990; Judith Stacey 1990).

In this study, I showed each of the young women that I interviewed a copy of

their transcript. I explained that this enabled them to verify and affirm the

information and to discuss any thoughts that they had about the process and data

gathered. Largely, I found that young women were not sure what to say about this

information. A few were slightly embarrassed at seeing their language and secrets

in print. Others seemed to defer to my ‘authority’ as a researcher saying that they

had no suggestions and that I would better know what to do with the information.

113

113

Perhaps, it was my own inexperience, but I was disappointed that the gesture of

bringing back the interview data did not stimulate more interest or involvement.

Perhaps, it could have been more effective if greater familiarity had developed

over several interviews or if I had better facilitated a more participatory process.

Thus, as with my own study, researchers’ interpretive power can distance research

participants from their own place in the text produced and feminists continue to

debate whether researchers’ authority can be adequately de-centred.

What then are some options for acknowledging and addressing power inequalities

in feminist studies? The debate around epistemological and methodological

approaches continues. Certainly, however, one way of consciously recognizing

these dynamics is through a reflexive approach. bell hooks (1993b, 78) wrote that

a researcher’s “biography, politics and relationships become part of the fabric of

the field”. Reflexivity therefore calls for the researcher’s personal account of the

politics of the research process, the quality of relations between researcher and

research participants, and the centering of authority in stages of interpreting and

writing. Some feminists advocate that researchers treat their positionality and

location as subjects in the research as data (Zavella 1991; Enslin 1990; Bolles

1985; Schrijvers 1986). But does this redistribute power? The process and politics

of situating oneself continue to be contested as feminist researchers try to stay

grounded in the emancipatory agenda of feminist movements.

114

114

Thus, while the debates continue, perhaps, the basic tenets of a feminist

methodology can be summarized as a constant and reflexive emphasis on gender

analysis, consciousness-raising, subjectivity and ethics (Cook and Fonow 1986,

5). The methods that feminists have used to conduct participatory, empowering

and reflexive research are not confined to feminist scholarship, but it is the

politics that inform how feminist scholars use their data that makes feminist

research “distinctive” (Smith 1987, 182).

3.3 Methods of data collection

This study used a multi-method approach that incorporated both qualitative and

quantitative methods such as participant observation, focus groups, individual

semi-structured interviews, workshops, and survey questionnaires. The limitations

and benefits of different methods are discussed in this section with accompanying

reflexive thoughts about the experience, for both the research participants and

myself, of undertaking these different processes.

3.3.1 Participant observation

Participant observation is a qualitative technique that enables the researcher to

observe and interact with participants in the group or setting under study. The

participant-observer relies on ‘natural’ settings to provide a picture of daily

actions, experience, values, views and problematic moments as they occur in

people’s everyday lives and tries to interpret these observations according to the

meanings that people attach to them (Denzin and Lincoln 1994, 2).

115

115

Participant observation was an incredibly rich and informative part of my data

collection as observation continually provided new ideas and insightful personal

experiences, and enabled me to test my theories about gender, adolescence and

ethnicity. I drew observations from a range of spaces, conversations and

experiences over (primarily) a four-year period from 1997 to 2001. I attended

many Indo-Trinidadian cultural and religious events such as pujas and satsangs,

Divali, Phagwa and Shiv Raatri celebrations, and Eid-ul Fitr commemorative

events. Malls, dance clubs, fetes and places frequented by young people were also

informative observational sites. As well, I kept track of my own experiences in

different settings to flag issues for further examination.

It is difficult to say where ‘the field’ started and ended throughout this process.

This was not only because I began thinking about these issues before I began

formal study, but also because ‘the field’ appeared in my own life at moments

when I was not conducting research. I often received comments and opinions

about my own appearance, associations and behaviour that I could relate to my

research. As well, spending time with my teenage sisters, and other young Indo-

Trinidadian women living within the area of study, raised similar issues. For

example, I began to theorize about the lives, experiences and insights of my

sisters living in Tunapuna. I accompanied them to school bazaars, trips to the

mall, cinema and house parties where they had to be chaperoned. I met their

friends, found out about what and who is “hot”, and about their responses to many

116

116

situations that they encountered. I learned a lot about the standpoints of teenage

girls.

I realized that I began to reference theories about adolescence to my observations

of my sisters’ lives. They knew about my research and, at times, I discussed it

with them. For example, we debated whether hairstyling and putting on makeup

was a leisure or ‘labour’ activity (McRobbie 1984, 1991). As well, when they

helped me code my questionnaires, we often discussed girls’ answers, my sisters’

own views and comparative experiences in their lives. In essence, their lives

intersected the questions and themes of the study and I often felt as if I was

observing ‘covertly’ or dishonestly. I understood the importance of boundaries,

but was not always sure how to establish them.

In another instance, after visiting a cousin living in St. Augustine, I wrote in my

journal:

I felt sly, like with the neighbour of my cousin who Ihave gotten to know. She didn’t know that uswalking along the street while she considered goinghome to her abusive boyfriend and telling me abouther life, the places and houses in the neighbourhoodwhere this baby was thrown away, where these girlsgive sex for money, where her aunt is livinginescapably became part of my ethnographicresearch. It would have been one thing if I hadcome as an ‘outsider’ with specific researchinterests, but I had come ‘home’ and these were theyoung women I was getting to know through dailyexperiences. So we talked and she talked and Icould not help but note points in my head.Observing, but refusing to write things downbecause I felt that that situated me firmly in an

117

117

academic exercise and this was my life. I waswondering how to carve out private time andprivate information. Now that I knew, I wonderedhow to account to her and to myself for what feltlike duplicity for not continuously acknowledgingthat I am inevitably taking notes.

Thus, participant observation sometimes seemed continuous because, at times, I

did not know if or when it stopped.

There were also times when my own actions deliberately blurred boundaries. For

example, as part of data gathering in 1999, I went to observe the semi-final and

final stages of the ‘queen’ competition for the Mastana Bahar Indian Cultural

Pageant. I was interested in young women’s performance of what I thought of as

“symbolic womanhood”. I informally interviewed three of the young women who

participated in that pageant and was intrigued by their aspirations and

personalities. While all were Hindu and felt connected to their religion and

culture, their aspiration to be Miss Mastana Bahar seemed less informed by a

desire to represent Indian culture than by a fantasy of being a beauty queen. In

this sense, by enabling them to access Indianness, the pageant affirmed a

particular type of (highly decorative, performative and idealized) femininity for

these girls. A number of the young women participating were employed or in

university, and, on occasion, I saw them in Club Coconuts dancing and drinking

with their boyfriends and friends. It seemed that Miss Mastana Bahar was more

than what the public saw represented on stage.

118

118

Curious to know more, I entered the pageant in 2000 and found the process of

getting to the finals extremely informative. The pageant establishes a signifier for

‘appropriate’ Indo-Trinidadian womanhood in the representation of Miss Mastana

Bahar. Both observing and participating highlighted the role that the pageant

plays in constructing Indian womanhood as a gender and ethnic ideal. However, a

glance below the surface, presents another picture of young Indo-Trinidadian (and

Dougla) women attempting to affirm a sense of femininity through one of many

possible representations and sources of validation. What about my feminist

positioning? As a researcher, I entered consciously attempting to examine

representations of ethnicity and gender at all stages from preliminaries to final

crowning. As a young Indo-Trinidadian feminist, I also entered very aware of the

significance of “gender play” (Chapkis, 1986) to women’s conscious reworking

of the contradictions and expectations of womanhood4. The politics of beauty

pageants of all kinds remain problematic. Even as a response to constructions of

powerlessness, agency, irreverence and feminist resistance also have no pure

positioning (see Appendix B).

My involvement provided some insight into the ways that the Miss Mastana

Bahar image is contested both through self-conscious stage performance and the

4 Wendy Chapkis (1986, 13-9), in Body Secrets: Women and the Politics of Appearance , writes,“Though women did not create the opposition between the sexy and self-respecting, the sensuousand serious, we often – even in our rebellion – have accepted these qualities as mutually exclusive.And indeed not without reason….Given the terms of this polarized debate, women attempting togo beyond the divisions risk being seen as backsliders – or worse, collaborators with the old,oppressive order…we need to find ways to allow for gender play without reinforcing genderprivilege…The point is not only to increase the diversity of images of female sexuality but tomove beyond the passivity of the sexually attractive.”

119

119

pull of other generational, sub-cultural spaces where these ‘queens’ can also be

found. In this regard, participant-observation provided social context and enabled

me to work out how concepts such as “symbolic womanhood” may be operating

in the everyday. As well, more than other methods, this one continually reminded

me that while distinctions between researcher and participant may not always be

clear, blurred boundaries provide important insights.

Similarly, Patricia Hill Collins (1990, xiii) wrote,

Instead of viewing the everyday as a negativeinfluence on my theorizing, I tried to see how theeveryday actions and ideas of the Black women in mylife reflected the theoretical issues I claimed were soimportant to them

Perhaps, by naming how I was socially, emotionally (Steier 1991, 179) and

intellectually located in relation to my participants, I retained some grasp over the

blurred boundaries between their narratives, and my responses and relationships

to those narratives. This commitment to reflexivity seemed particularly important

in “situation(s) of acquaintance” (Paul 1996, 176).

3.3.2 In-depth interviews

I conducted in-depth interviews with four young working women who were

unwilling to participate in the survey, five young women living in the area of

study and five attending the University of the West Indies. While seeking young

women to participate in the survey, I made contact with those working in

Tunapuna. I met the others through a ‘snowball’ sampling technique. I considered

120

120

in-depth interviews an important component of the study because they provided a

picture of the inner feelings and thoughts involved in young women’s

negotiations. In this sense, they complemented other methods such as the survey,

participant-observation and focus groups.

For the most part, young women were very willing to be interviewed and often

said that I asked interesting questions that provoked introspection. Some also

mentioned how much talking about personal things exposes a person and, at

times, they went through a range of responses such as sadness, hesitancy,

laughter, seriousness and thoughtfulness. Confidentiality was very important to

the young women and I continually emphasized it in the interviews, especially

when they were divulging sensitive issues. Annecka Marshall (1994, 116) noted

how participants’ “relatively powerless position as respondents was increased by

their willingness to trust me – a trust that could be betrayed”. I am uncertain

whether the girls trusted me, but I believe that they were comfortable with me.

Thus, as Kirin Narayan (1993) suggested, I also tried to focus on the quality of

my interaction with participants by making the interview as chatty, interactional

and informal as possible.

As mentioned earlier, ethical issues arose in interviews that were conducted with

young women who were friends or family members. When I began the fieldwork

for this study, I was very interested in documenting and theorizing from the lives

of those whose histories, situations and personalities I knew. I thought that it was

121

121

positive that familiarity and trust were already established between us, and that

this foundation could engender more comfort in the interviews. Perhaps, at first, I

also felt uncertain about asking unfamiliar young women highly personal

questions. As a young Indo-Trinidadian woman myself, I was acutely aware that I

was publicizing conversations dealing very ‘private’ matters and that, for young

women, sharing ‘private’ knowledge is often associated with negative

repercussions. Telling one’s story could be experienced as both empowering and

exposing, and I could appreciate this.

When I began fieldwork, my relationship with these young women and the

knowledge that we shared changed. At times, it became awkward when, during an

interview, young women that I already knew would make reference to my

‘private’ knowledge of an incident in their lives. The blurring of our relationship

also became significant after I turned off the tape recorder and we chatted for a

while. Our conversation would filter through my research questions even when

we seemed to be relating again as just friends. I am not suggesting that these

young women were entirely inappropriate to interview, but certainly I needed to

be cognizant of the way that I could access ‘private’ information when my

‘public’ role as a researcher was allowed to submerge.

Before the interview began, I explained why this research was important to me

and how it could contribute to the history about Indo-Trinidadians from a young

women’s perspective. Interviewees would usually agree that young women’s

122

122

perspectives were important and they wanted to help. I never felt that extra effort

was ever needed to establish legitimacy with this group. However, I had ongoing

email conversations with two young women about being interviewed. They

questioned me about the information I was seeking from them and how it was

going to be used. As Ann Oakley (1990) noted in her own study, many young

women did not feel that their lives were interesting enough for any study. She

claimed that participants’ self-worth was enhanced by the opportunity to be

valued, knowledgeable and interesting.

At the beginning of each interview, I told the young women that they could also

ask me questions. Oakley (1990) argued that answering the questions of

interviewees personalizes and humanizes the researcher and places interaction on

more equal footing (see also Cook and Fonow 1986, 9; Hooks 1989, 131). All of

the young women accepted my offer and, often, (usually toward the end of the

interview) asked me about myself. Often, they were also most interested in

questions about sexuality and femininity, and would ask me if I had a boyfriend,

how my parents felt about it, how I felt about pre-marital sex, if I went out to

parties and what career I wanted. At the end of interviews, I asked them for their

opinions about the experience. All of them thought that that the experience and

the questions that I asked were interesting. Several said that it was nice to talk to

someone who wasn’t judging them and one said that my comments during the

interview were good for her self-esteem. However, I would not necessarily say

123

123

that any of the girls were “empowered” by the interview process to critically

evaluate or change their circumstances.

Given the short duration of the interviews, I found that the young women were far

more willing to share very private aspects of their lives than I had anticipated.

Janet Finch (1984) suggested that if a researcher is educated and articulate, it is

very easy to encourage women to talk about aspects of their lives which, on

reflection, they might have preferred to remain silent (ibid, 16). However, Sue

Wise (1987, 68) has written that she was “impressed over the years…at the ease

with which women tell intimate and painful biographical details about

themselves”. Her experience was “that getting them to talk is usually no problem

– getting them to stop is harder”. Certainly, young women were willing to share

details about their lives and for some it may have been a kind of catharsis.

3.3.3 Focus groups

I used focus groups to suggest girls’ priorities and issues, and to see if this method

revealed less individualistic information and insight. Essentially, a focus group is

“an informal discussion among selected individuals about specific topics” (Beck,

Trombetta and Share 1986, 73). Scholars suggest that this method should be used

when the group discussion format is appropriate and when it suits the purpose of

the study. Interestingly, a number of scholars (Fine 1992; Fine and Addelston

1996; Macpherson and Fine 1995) have used group conversations to gather data,

but have not formally used the term “focus group” to describe their approach.

124

124

This seems similar to the many informal discussions I had with groups of girls as

part of participant-observation.

Some feminist scholars (see Wilkinson 1999) have posited that focus groups are

suited to feminist research because they provide social context through processes

that mirror “everyday social interaction” (ibid, 227). This is seen to be particularly

true when group members are friends or acquaintances. The interactive setting is

valued for raising particular insights through debate, conversation and joking. As

well, it enables researchers to explore a process among participants of

constructing and negotiating meanings, and elaborating identities. Frey and

Fontana (1993, 26) and others have pointed out that the researcher’s power

becomes “diffused” in focus groups. This enables participants to “assert their own

interpretations and agendas” (Wilkinson 1999, 223).

While this is seen as empowering by some, I found that it may enable some

participants to establish a discussion setting where others censor themselves for

fear of being judged. Focus groups are also notoriously challenging to “manage”

and “moderate” (Stewart and Shamdasani 1990; Vaughn et al. 1996), and can

generate “chaotic data” (Kvale 1996, 101). My own experience partially reflects

this and I found that great skill is needed to effectively facilitate group

discussions. However, focus groups are seen to be extremely valuable for action

research and consciousness-raising (Mies 1983; Fine 1992; Vaughn et al. 1996)

and I approached the workshops for young female students from this perspective.

125

125

The two focus groups that I conducted raised a range of issues regarding

lifestyles, family relations, gender sanctions and moral imperatives from young

women’s standpoints. The first focus group, held at The University of the West

Indies5, comprised one Afro-Trinidadian and three Indo-Trinidadian Muslim girls

aged nineteen to twenty-one years old. After the focus group, one of the young

women began revealing things about herself which she would not have in the

group for fear of being seen as immoral or hypocritical. This highlighted how

females ‘police’ each other’s ‘purity’ and how girls may keep their subversive

behaviour very private. After this experience, I began thinking that individual

interviews would provide more confidentiality, and, perhaps, be more appropriate.

The second focus group, held after service in the Aramalaya Presbyterian Church

in Tunapuna, brought out different information from the group of Muslim girls.

The five participating Indo-Trinidadian Presbyterian girls aged between fifteen

and twenty years old clearly held more liberal views about themselves, their

bodies, behaviour and sexuality. Whereas the Muslim girls talked about not being

allowed to touch males, have close male friends, “go out” and, at times, be too

outspoken, the Presbyterian girls talked openly about having boyfriends and

leisure privileges, and making individual decisions about life choices. While both

sets of girls seemed to negotiate with rules, it appeared more permissible for

Presbyterian girls to do so. Unfortunately, I was never able to facilitate a focus

group with the Hindu girls I had contacted.

5 The young women chose the focus group sites.

126

126

Nonetheless, discussions with these two groups of young women revealed a very

private world of opinions and behaviours often totally hidden from parents,

family, community and religious elders. As well, whether they may have been

(sexually) involved with boys or not, these girls all spoke against sex before

marriage and emphasised the importance of getting an education, having men

respect them and not being dependent. The appearance of virginity and morality is

very important and I found that, while focus groups usefully provided key themes,

girls’ honesty was quite compromised by this group setting. Thus, subsequent

interviews with young women were done individually unless, for example, two

girls who were close friends came to be interviewed together. Increasingly, as

fieldwork progressed, I noted how confidentiality was very important for young

women and felt that I made a decision sensitive to these needs.

3.3.4 Survey rationale and design

Despite the criticisms from feminist scholars directed at quantitative survey

methods (Maynard 1990, 10), others (for example, Singleton and Christiansen

1977; Dixon 1982, Marshall 1994) have argued that statistical methods can be

refined and used in feminist research. This counter-perspective argues against

equating objectivity and positivism with quantification. The problem of

objectification and quantification has been resolved for some feminist researchers

by combining both quantitative and qualitative methods, and the use of

triangulation (Cook and Fonow 1986, 16; for an example of this in Caribbean

feminist research see Yolanda Paul 1996).

127

127

Others have chosen to acknowledge how “providing figures involves as much an

act of social construction as any other kind of research” and the issue is whether

feminists use quantitative methods “naively” (Maynard 1990, 13). Statistical

studies, focusing on violence, abuse, under-employment and poverty in women’s

lives, have been able to provide data across large populations and these have

specific, political potential. Finally, feminists have argued that questionnaires can

enable participants to feel anonymous and, thus, to be more honest about intimate

or traumatic experiences (ibid, 14).

I chose to use questionnaires in this study because I felt that demographic data

needed to be generated as part of my findings. Additionally, the survey enabled

me to reach a wider sample of young women than individual interviews and to

illuminate common experiences from within this larger scope. Unsure of how

girls would respond to verbal questions about sexual practices, I also thought that

the use of questionnaires would provide greater anonymity.

The questionnaire was administered in conjunction with a workshop to single-sex

classroom groups in fourth and fifth form in four schools chosen to represent

different denominations and educational privilege. The fourth school was a state

sponsored school that gave me access to those in a secular educational

environment. Questionnaires were also given to young women working in the

commercial area of Tunapuna. The return rate for questionnaires given to these

young women was low and my experiences with them are detailed separately. The

128

128

statistical component of this study is based on the surveys returned by a total of

one hundred and twenty-six adolescents.

Originally, the survey was intended to supplement, comment upon and reinforce

qualitative data gathered through participant observation, individual interviews

and narratives, workshops and focus group discussions. It was designed to

provide statistical data suggesting the commonality and variety of experiences

among adolescent girls. Over the course of the research, the questionnaire became

increasingly central to the study. Presently, it is the most extensive source of data

and the more qualitative methods have become largely supplementary and

contextual. This change came partly because of time constraints, my own

inexperience and the vast amount of data generated by the survey. Young women

had less free time than I expected outside of work, school and homework, and

chores for in-depth interviews. Thus, the survey design also changed to meet new

needs. The themes emerged from participant observation. The combination of

questions was intended to bring together quantitative and qualitative kinds of data.

Though discussion of the findings of more qualitative data is limited, I hope to

compare the results of comparative methods in later explorations of the findings

highlighted here.

The questionnaire attempts to give girls as much space as possible to comment on

the questions, and to describe their experiences and views in their own words. In

this regard, I included many open-ended questions and space for girls to write.

129

129

Open-ended questions generated extremely interesting and rich data, but the

complexity of girls’ responses was hard to “objectively”6 translate into a

statistical database. I chose to pull together girls’ answers in broad, collected

themes and to make extensive use of their own words and phrases. All quotes in

the following chapters are drawn from these. More than anything else, using girls’

writings highlighted the contradictions, divergences and overlap in their

perspectives and ideas. They did not provide answers that could be easily, clearly

and separately categorized. This reminded me not to represent their views

regarding many issues as singular, static or clear-cut.

Generally, the questionnaire brought together a range of themes relevant to Indo-

Trinidadian girls’ experience of growing up in Trinidad in the late twentieth

century. I wanted to explore girls’ negotiations with moral imperatives, family,

societal and religious expectations, gender inequality and gendered sanctions, and

their own desires, opinions and perspectives.

The questions were drawn from my initial research questions, personal

experience, studies on adolescents and sexuality (Rubin 1969; Laitinen 1997) and

themes that arose through participant observation beginning in 1995 and

extending through to 1999 when the questionnaire was administered. Thus, the

process of formulating and arranging questions was also infused with my personal

questions and those of the young Indo-Trinidadian women with whom I had

6 Denise Farran (1990, 100-101) suggested “there is no such thing as objective coding”. Instead,making sense of statistics requires “contextual information” and “subjectivism”.

130

130

conversations early in the conceptualization stage. At times, I was torn between

acknowledging and privileging my own knowledge. In this regard, Stacy (1969,

50) wrote,

In drawing up questionnaires in one’s own societyone is in fact calling upon a good deal of knowledgegained simply by being a member of that society.Unwitting biases may be introduced for the samereason.

She (ibid, 62) goes on to note that this can be a basis for theorizing and argued,

Since social research workers can never altogetherstand outside their work, there is a case for usingtheir involvement for research purposes.

This again emphasized the importance of reflexivity in discussing both

quantitative and qualitative methods, and in recognizing the personal stake and

history that researchers may have in their questions and conclusions.

Of the 126 young women participating in the survey, Indo-Trinidadians comprise

almost three quarters of the entire group. Similarly, general discussions of girls’

views primarily represent Hindus as they comprise 60% of this group and 45% of

the entire sample population. In comparison, Muslims and Christians represent

approximately 15% and 26% respectively, and 16% and 40% respectively of the

entire sample population. In particular, Roman Catholics and Presbyterians

represent respectively 6% and 11% of Indo-Trinidadians, and 16% and 8% of the

entire survey group7. Disaggregated by age, girls 14 to 16 years old comprise over

80% of all girls in the survey.

7 See Appendix A for fuller demographic profile of survey participants.

131

131

The following chapters analyze these young women’s words and statements as

derived from responses to open-ended and coded questions in the survey. Use of

open-ended questions was especially enriching as a great variety and complexity

of views emerged. Statements in quotations represent different girls’ views,

expressed in their own words and grouped together based on their similarity or

shared sentiment. Young women not only expressed divergent views in one

answer, but a range of views over the course of the survey. Essentially, there is a

great deal of divergence, complexity and flux that I tried to accommodate while

not simplifying or limiting. However, it made the task of creating a statistical

database from open-ended answers extremely subjective (Farran 1990).

3.3.4.1 Survey themes

The questionnaire (see Appendix C) is divided into fifteen areas. The first two

sections asked for demographic information such as age, religion, ethnicity, union

status, number of children, area of residence and educational level both for the

girls and their parents. This information was useful for providing detailed

statistical data and a generational perspective. The sections on education (3) and

occupation (4) inquired into the importance that girls’ placed on educational

achievement, career aspirations and economic independence. At times, the

thematic areas overlapped and questions regarding issues of marriage and family

(5) also dealt with ‘moral’ positions on marriage, abortion and adoption.

132

132

As the questionnaire began to delve into religious beliefs and women’s roles in

religious practice (6), the questions increasingly became open-ended allowing

girls space to describe the impact their religion made on their values and sense of

self. These considerations flowed into those in the section on morality (7). This

was the most interesting as well as the most confusing and challenging for the

girls. They told me that it pushed them to think about where society’s and their

own ideas about morality and immorality came from. They also reported feeling

challenged to articulate what they saw as morally appropriate and inappropriate

behaviour for girls and women. Questions related to girls’ appearance (8) asked

more specifically on the significance, particularly within the Indo-Trinidadian

community, of different ways of “carrying oneself”.

I had some concerns about the section on sexuality and questions about incest and

abuse. What to do if someone said they had been abused? What if it took me a

few weeks to come across her questionnaire? What if she said that she had not

told anyone else? Given that as many as twelve young women responded they had

experienced sexual abuse or assault, these questions remained unresolved and

uncomfortable for me throughout this study. The section focusing on sexuality (9)

made the questionnaire extremely difficult to administer at the El Dorado

Secondary Comprehensive School. It had already been administered in three

denominational schools – Presbyterian, Muslim and Hindu – and had been

approved without question. The principal and guidance counselors objected to the

questions about girls’ sexual practices, pre-marital sex, sexual health information,

133

133

STDs, sexual abuse and homosexuality. I explained that I wanted to find out

about girls’ knowledge of society’s definitions of permissible sexuality as well as

their opinions about their own and others’ sexual choices. After lengthy

discussions, we agreed on using parental consent forms and emphasizing to girls

that they could refuse to answer the questions. All the girls returned signed forms.

Questions related to the theme of emerging womanhood (10) inquired into girls’

role models, views on ‘reputation’, ‘respectability’, femininity, masculinity and

equality. The area focusing on selfhood and aspirations (11) most closely linked

to the themes that I developed in the workshops that I facilitated with the four

school groups. The workshops, discussed in more detail below, also focused on

self-image and girls’ sense of capability, options and future aspirations. Thus, I

was able to compare the data gathered through a more qualitative, interactive

format with that from the questionnaire.

Themes raised in the section on family (12) asked about aspects of family

socialization and family relationships. Although the theme was ethnicity (13), the

emphasis in this area was really on Indo-Trinidadian ethnicity. Questions asked

about the meaning of ‘Indianness’, the importance of traditions and the impact

they make on girls’ sense of self and values, and girls’ perspectives on inter-racial

relationships and friendships. These questions built on earlier ones about how

girls’ felt their religious community and family would view inter-racial unions.

The last two sections asked about girls’ participation and leadership in religious,

134

134

political, community or youth groups, their perceptions of women’s role in

politics and gender equality (14), and girls’ leisure time (15). The focus on leisure

helped explore the aspects of popular culture related to their lives. For example, I

asked about their favorite radio stations and types of music, television shows,

Indian and U.S. movie stars, recreational activities and participation in Carnival

and Chutney events.

3.3.4.2 Administering the survey

As a workshop on selfhood for young women accompanied administration of the

questionnaire, I thought it better to give girls a ‘safe’ and private female-only

space to express themselves. Originally, I intended to use ‘natural class clusters’

of girls to reflect the possible diversity of racially mixed groupings in schools. I

felt that bringing in non-Indo-Trinidadian girls’ answers would shed light on a

comparative ethnic perspective as well as reflect the multi-ethnic character of

Indo-Trinidadian girls’ social groups. Additionally, it could provide information

about ways in which adolescent girls’ realities cross ethnic divisions. Thus, I

opted to administer the questionnaire in a multi-ethnic setting in the four schools.

I communicated my needs with a teacher in each school who then promised to

organize a class of girls for the workshop and the survey. Unfortunately, I was not

able to secure class clusters as I had requested in the schools. When I arrived at

one school, the teacher said that another class had a spare period, so she combined

the two groups. In another instance, the teacher was extremely pleased about the

135

135

study’s focus on Indo-Trinidadian girls and organized many of the Indo-

Trinidadian girls in her classes, whom she thought would be interested, to come to

the workshop. Although I think that teachers understood that I wanted a natural

class cluster, they also used the workshop to fill in spare time for some students,

develop some students’ interest in their culture, and expose others to some ideas

about girls, confidence, aspirations and socialization.

Many teachers thought that the workshop was an exciting event for the girls and

brought other considerations into play when choosing a class group. This gave me

the sense that teachers wanted more workshops in schools on girls’ experiences of

growing up. I requested two consecutive periods to give the girls enough time for

the workshop and to fill out the questionnaire. That was only possible at St.

Augustine Girls High School (S.A.G.H.S.) and Rafeek Memorial Trinidad Muslim

League (T.M.L.) Secondary School where the girls first filled out the questionnaire

and then participated in the workshop. When I was not given enough time, I

prioritized the workshop. At El Dorado Secondary Comprehensive School and

Lakshmi Girls Hindu College, I left the questionnaire with the girls and returned

for them a week later.

3.3.4.3 Girls’ evaluation of the survey

When I collected the questionnaires from girls, I asked for their thoughts and

comments. Some said it was too long, others wanted more, some thought it was

okay. I was happy to learn that nearly all thought that it was interesting,

136

136

challenging, thought provoking and, sometimes, it helped them learn about

themselves. A few girls told me or wrote in the questionnaire, especially with

regard to the section on sexuality, that I was “too fas” (inquisitive about their

personal affairs). When I explained that the questionnaire information would be

kept confidential, but that girls could show it to whomever they chose, some girls

opted to fill out their questionnaires in small groups. They discussed, shared,

laughed, chatted, expressed shock and helped each other clarify their ideas.

Sometimes, I heard comments like, “Homosexuality? Hmpf, I need a whole

book”, “Have I ever experienced domestic violence? Who could hit me!” or “I

wish a man could experience labour once, just once!” I had intended for the

surveys to be filled out individually, but the choice to do it in groups and to share

comments made the process more enjoyable for them. It also exemplified how, in

focus group settings, participants have much more power to determine the process

of interaction and data gathering.

3.3.5 Workshop rationale and design

Workshops were one way of giving back to the girls some of my knowledge and

time and were, as well, a way of attempting consciousness-raising (Mies, 1979).

The workshops emphasized critical thinking about the self, the world and the

ways in which women are represented. I wanted to give the girls a forum within

which to theorize about their lives and to leave them with things to think about.

Additionally, I hoped that the workshop would help them link their private

feelings, beliefs and experiences to history, society and culture: to see how the

137

137

personal is knowledgeable and political. Finally, I thought that it would help them

understand my reasons for undertaking this study and place the questionnaire and

specific questions in that context. Thus, the workshops were a chance to establish

a face-to-face relationship with the girls, to listen, to answer and ask questions, to

share and, hopefully, establish some trust.

My preparations for the workshops were informed by an excellent workshop

guide published by the Centre for Development and Population Activities in

Washington to “help adolescent girls shape their own lives and create their own

options” (1996, vii). The opening paragraphs of the introduction (ibid, vii) read:

Girls Have the Right to Make Choices

Choose a Future! is based on two principles:• girls have the right to make choices to determine

their futures, and• girls can develop the capabilities to make choices

Girls can learn to make choices by:• developing self-respect and self-esteem• creating sisterhood and supportive peer

relationships• expanding their skills in analysis and decision-

making,• problem-solving, and negotiation, and• having increased access to resources

Girls participating in this program grow in theseareas while examining real issues in their own livesand their options for dealing with theseissues…child-bearing, marriage, health, familyrelations, education, work, legal status, andcommunity involvement.

138

138

I used the workbook’s model for “experiental learning” (ibid, viii). Girls are

encouraged to share and use examples from their own experiences, and to focus

on seeing solutions as attainable. I copied the first three pages of the introduction

for all the girls in the workshops. This included information on why girls needed

choices and options; that they had the right to make choices; and how the

“experiential learning” process could help them “apply new knowledge or skills

to future situations” (ibid, viii). It could be argued that such messages advance a

Western, bourgeois and individualistic ideology emphasizing choice. However,

the aim was primarily to get girls thinking, talking and sharing about girlhood

without getting into the specific questions of the survey. The workshop sought to

situate this experience in a range of structural power relations using the issues,

language, and examples that girls raised. Though quite brief, I hoped to see if girls

would themselves raise themes of awareness, solidarity and agency through

references to their own experiences and local popular culture. Thus, rather than

simply propagating a reductionist claim that social change is about girls’ ‘right’

choices and improvement of self-esteem, the workshop focused on aspect of self-

hood, aspirations, and empowerment individually and collectively. The workbook

also discussed the idea and practice of facilitation, instead of teaching, within this

model. I also gave them this information so that they could understand my own

role as facilitator and their own authority over their knowledge. As well, I thought

that the points raised could help them critically examine the educational

approaches to which they were exposed in class.

139

139

I chose three opening lines in the introduction of the workbook (1996, 1) to

design my workshop. Written on flipchart paper, they read:

• A girls’ view of her options is rooted in her self-image.

• Is she aware that society has different expectationsfor her as a female than it does for a male?

• Does she see herself as having many possibilitiesand the capabilities to realize them?

First, I introduced the study, the survey and myself to the groups8. I talked a little

about how the politics of feminist research influenced my decision to facilitate the

workshops and the way that a participatory workshop could help girls learn more

about their own and other’s experiences. As an icebreaker, I asked girls to tell me

their names and something that they liked about themselves or someone that they

loved. Girls often chose descriptions such as “funny”, “good listener”, “caring”,

“helpful”, “nice eyes”, “independent” and “fun”. Some girls couldn’t find

anything to say and when this happened there would be a flutter of reaction from

other girls telling them that there must be something they liked about themselves.

In these cases, either I encouraged them, came back to them later or did not push.

This exercise was very valuable later in the workshop when we began talking

about how girls are described by others as “good”, “modest”, “virtuous” or “slut”

and “skettel”. This was a good way of opening the discussion about self-image

and was later linked to girls’ sense of options. Pointing out that none of the girls

8 I dressed professionally because I thought that it would reassure the teacher that she could trustme as an adult with the classes. It also underscored my researcher’s status with the students.However, my manner of talking was very casual and I told the girls to call me by my first nameand not “Miss”. As well, I used examples based in youth popular culture and encouraged them todo the same in the hope that the generation gap between us could be de-emphasised throughshared reference points. Also, I took snacks and drinks so that they atmosphere in the classroomwould be less disciplinary.

140

140

ever used words such as “modest” or “obedient” to describe themselves

highlighted the differences between how girls self-perceptions and the way

judgmental terms often categorize women and push them into molds. It helped

emphasize the importance of girls valuing themselves on their own terms. At the

end of the workshops, girls often seized this point as a particularly valuable one.

The body of the workshops consisted of us going through the three statements/

questions, breaking down the terms, defining them in terms of girls’ perceptions

and experiences, and discussing how they are defined in society. We made links

between girlhood, self-image, options, gender roles, discrimination, social change

and individual capacity. Emerging themes included girls’ perceptions of what it

takes to succeed, sexual harassment, self-esteem, respect from males, being

judged by other girls, how women are seen in society, popular songs and stars,

sexiness, parents and peers, women leaders, social problems and the power to

make a difference. There was usually a lot of debate and many girls had

contributions to make. Girls used words like “sexism”, “chauvinism”,

“discrimination” and “inequality” with great familiarity and highlighted AIDS,

unemployment, crime, pollution, illiteracy, suicide, divorce, abortion, drugs,

health, discrimination, poverty, teen pregnancy, domestic violence and rape in

their discussion of social problems.

The workshops ended on a visionary note. I asked them to describe how they

would like the see the world for women in 2020, what kinds of careers they would

141

141

like to have, and what qualities girls needed to fulfill their aspirations and to be

strong. Girls mentioned such things as “dedication”, “confidence”, “open-

mindedness”, “self-respect”, “commitment”, “motivation”, “education”,

“determination” and a “sense of importance”. These comments showed

recognition that girls continue to strive in an environment that may often be

constraining and discouraging. As well, we discussed how they could use their

careers to address social problems and those in women’s lives. The final exercise

was my way of giving them a small tool for the future. The last five minutes were

for girls to write an affirmation that might help if they felt low, discouraged or

confused and which they could put under their pillow, in their pocket, above their

desk etc. On palm-size squares of paper that I distributed, girls wrote statements

like “be confident”, “always believe in God” and “take one day at a time”. They

found sharing and learning from each other’s affirmations valuable. Responses

would be “that’s a good one” and various expressions of agreement. When I asked

if they had any last questions, many times the girls asked about whether I was

married or had a boyfriend, my age, what music I liked, what I wanted to be after

school and, especially, when I was coming back9. At the end, I asked girls for

their evaluation of the workshop and about how they felt. Most said things like

confident, powerful, strong, good, inspired, tired and hungry.

9 Though I tried as a facilitator not to introduce my own views in the workshops, it is possible thatmy appearance and perceived stances on different subjects biased the take home surveys. Did girlsgive me what they thought I wanted to hear? Feminist methodology acknowledges that all researchis involved and biased because data is gathered through personal interaction. This draws responsesat many levels. To argue that girls’ gave me what they thought I expected, I would have to assumetheir responses could be entirely predicted. In fact, their statements throughout the workshoprevealed a variety of positions that stimulated great debate and discussion.

142

142

Rather than getting them to focus on survey questions, the workshops were

designed to be fun and to get girls to share their experiences and views generally.

The workshops and survey were intended to complement each other, to provide

comparable sources of data and to encourage girls to see their experiences as

collective and heterogeneous. Given the brief, exploratory nature of the

workshops and the far more detailed nature of the survey, I do not believe that the

group discussions significantly affected the survey responses. I sometimes saw

girls from the workshops on the street and often they came up to talk to me. In

one interesting encounter when I was chaperoning my teenage sister at a party, I

saw one student from St. Augustine Girls High School. She was smoking

cigarettes and drinking alcohol and looked as if she got caught doing something

wrong when she saw me. I went up to say hello and told her not to worry. She

grew more comfortable and, in fact, we chatted for a few minutes.

3.4 Young women working in Tunapuna

Originally, I intended to conduct focus groups with adolescent young women

working in the commercial centre of Tunapuna. I thought it important to include a

group who were part of the working world, and whose options, aspirations and

views would be shaped by different circumstances than girls in schools.

Unfortunately, I totally underestimated the time they could make available. I

walked from business to business in the area and asked (self-identified) Indo-

Trinidadian or “mixed” girls if they were interested in participating. Many of the

143

143

girls said they were interested, but worked six days a week and did not want to

give up time for themselves after their chores on Sundays.

Not wanting to exclude them entirely from the sample, I chose to give them the

surveys to take home. I gave them my phone number and said they could call if

they had questions or, if they wanted, I would make time to meet them to go

through it together. I asked if the survey could be returned in two weeks. I

returned to Tunapuna to briefly visit the girls and to ask whether they had any

questions. After two weeks, many said that they had not finished and asked for

more time. I made about twenty visits to see them over a period of seven weeks.

Of thirty questionnaires given out, only twelve were finally returned.

The questionnaires from this group of young women really suffer from an absence

of answers to many open-ended questions that required them to express

themselves in their own words. Many girls’ had low literacy levels and/or were

simply very busy. Although the questionnaire seemed inappropriate for this

group, I was unsure at the time about how to include them in the study.

Nonetheless, one good outcome of my many visits was that I developed

familiarity with them and was able to stop and chat for a few minutes about their

lives. This did not generate the depth of data that I would have liked to gather, but

indicated, for any future research, the factors for consideration and the extent and

flexibility of time needed to really get to know and explore these girls’ identities.

144

144

3.5 Conclusion

A feminist approach to research calls for reflexive acknowledgement of

positionality, power and ethical dilemmas throughout the research process. This

study is founded on the principles underlying a feminist approach. As well,

aspects of feminist methodology such as a commitment to “conscious partiality”,

“conscientization” and “empowering” aspects of the research process are also

emphasized. Particular ethical issues arise in this study because of my multiple

and shifting roles as researcher and participant in the research. These issues are

not new to feminist researchers who ground their epistemologies and

methodologies in “their” community’s ways of knowing. Therefore, debates

continue about power and representation through different methodologies and

methods. In situations such as these, and in my own study, there needs to be an

awareness of how we obtain knowledge, what and whose knowledge is obtained

and the reasons for the texts that are produced. This is not just a concern about

‘good’ research, but a political commitment to documenting the research

experience. It is about treating methodological positions, methods and fieldwork

experiences as research findings and knowledge.