Nurturing critical hope in teaching feminist social work research

Journal of Social Work Education, 49: 277-291, 2013Copyright © Council on Social Work EducationISSN: 1043-7797 print/2163-5811 online S " \ Taylor 6. Francis CroupDOI: 10.1080/10437797.2013.768477

I J Routledge5 ^ ^ Taylors»FrancisCrou

Nurturing "Critical Hope" in TeachingFeminist Social Work Research

Ben Anderson-Nathe, Christina Gringeri, and Stéphanie Wahab

Despite the congruence between critical feminist values and the cardinal values of the social workprofession, feminist research in social work has lagged behind its fetninist cousins in the social sci-ences, particularly in terms of critical uses of theory, reflexivity, and the troubling of binaries. Thisarticle presents as praxis our reflections as researchers, teachers, and feminists inside social work.We draw from a review of feminist social work research and offer suggestions for teaching ctiti-cal feminist approaches in social work research. Incorporating critical feminist values and researchpractices into social work research courses creates the potential for greater integration of research,practice, and the principal values of our profession.

As feminist social work academics, we argue that praxis is the critical contribution that socialwork as a discipline can bring to scholarly conversations around feminist research (Wahab,Anderson-Nathe, & Cringeri, 2012). Here we extend our previous work, offering as praxis ourreflections on what we have learned about and from feminist social work research and its mean-ing for our work as educators, researchers, and feminists. Our interpretations throughout thisproject have doubtless been informed and influenced by our positionalities. We are two womenand one man; two of us identify as queer and one as straight; two are White and one is mixed-race. We all identify as able-bodied and middle-class. These and other identities have led us todiverse experiences in conducting and teaching feminist research within university courses andto various—sometimes complicated—relationships with feminisms and social work. Our projectsstarted because of our shared sense that social work as a whole is not critical enough in its praxisand that social work research and social work feminist research frequently reproduce practicesand narratives associated with Whiteness, middle class, and benevolent work.

In this article, we examine the strengths in feminist social work research, describe strategiesresearchers may consider to deepen their engagement with the processes of feminist research,and offer suggestions for the teaching of critical feminist approaches in social work education.We argue that the incorporation of feminist approaches in research courses at the doctoral levelcan provide social work scholars with effective tools to develop knowledge for the purposes

Accepted: August 2011Ben Anderson-Nathe is associate professor and Child & Family Studies program director at Portland State University.

Christina Gringeri is associate professor at the University of Utah. Stéphanie Wahab is associate professor at theUniversity of Otago.

Address correspondence to Ben Anderson-Nathe, Child & Family Studies, School of Social Work, Portland StateUniversity, PO. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

2 7 8 ANDERSON-NATHE, GRINGERI, WAHAB

of social change. At the practice level, in both MSW and BSW courses, adoption of feministapproaches and critiques may deepen students' ability to critically engage with and evaluateresearch they will encounter in the field. Further, we see that critical feminisms in social workresearch may provide a foundation to anchor such research projects to some cardinal values of theprofession: social justice, our obligation to confront oppressions and injustices; dignity and worthof the person, including the commitment to supporting self-determination as well as collectivevalues and traditions; and competence, as signaled by the charge to contribute to the knowledgebase of the profession.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM OUR REVIEW OF FEMINISTSOCIAL WORK RESEARCH

Feminist claims in published social work literature demonstrated a wide range of engagementwith feminisms, from the basic claim that the work is "by, about, and for" women, to claimsdeeply rooted in critical feminist discussions. Authors' claims to feminisms in exemplary workswere articulated in several ways, such as a deep foundation in feminist theories; a critical focuson women and women's issues by assuming constructivist notions of "woman"; critical under-standing of gender, or multiple, intersectional social identities; or willingness to explore, refiecton, and critique the research process from a fetninist perspective. These authors made feministclaims for their works that went beyond "women's issues" or the treatment of gender only as abinary category of analysis. They critiqued the essentialist constructs on which earlier feministwork is built and developed their research in ways that connect and extend their commitments tothe values and praxis of social work.

Related to the critique of essentialist constructs, we noted whether authors reinforced ordeconstructed binary and dualistic thinking, with the majority of researchers tending to rein-force binaries, particularly taking for granted gender as a binary. Exemplary works troubledbinary thinking by disrupting gender categories and associations between gender and bodies andby questioning dualistic relationships, such as subject-object, researcher-participant, layperson-expert, and perpetrator-victim. Opening up binary categories for review allows feminist socialworkers to sharpen our awareness and deepen our understanding of the complexities and nuancesof social realities and multiple identities and helps us avoid contributing to reductionist thinkingand knowledge production that tend to reinscribe marginalization and oppression.

Noting Orme's observation (2003) that social work has not engaged consistently with socialtheory, including feminist theories, we reviewed articles to better understand the ways in whichauthors used theory in their research. In exemplary feminist papers, we noted that authors wentbeyond presenting theory in the opening conceptualization of the work and used theory as a setof guiding principles within the analysis, foregrounding theory in discussions and implications.

Lastly, we examined, feminist methodology broadly, including ethical issues beyondInstitutional Review Board (IRB) requirements, such as power, voice, authority, and represen-tation; additionally, we noted whether the authors addressed refiexivity and praxis. Whereasmost feminist social work authors mentioned IRB, few developed discussions of ethical obli-gations. Exemplary papers contained well-developed discussions of ethics, obligations, refiexiveaccounts, and attention to power and representation within the research relationship. Variousfeminist researchers have refiected on the ways in which researchers may reinforce or repro-duce the power relations in society and its institutions (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Pascale,

NURTURING "CRITICAL HOPE" 2 7 9

2010). Feminist methodologies challenge researchers to consider and analyze the practices of theresearch process with the aim of transforming them into new practices that empower participantsand researchers.

In sum, we learned that, though few in number, social work researchers are producing high-quality work in which multiple aspects of feminist research are engaged. However, as a field,we do seem to lag behind our social science colleagues engaged in feminist scholarship withrespect to participating in cross-disciplinary feminist conversations. In the spirit of encouragingcolleagues to enter more fully into these conversations, we offer our reflections on the ways inwhich we might take up the challenge of developing critical feminist voices within our researchand professional practice. We do so with the intent of nurturing "critical hope" in our practice,evaluation, and teaching of research: where we, as social workers, "critique what has been, troublewhat is, and together seek what could be" (Cahill, Quijada Cerecer, & Bradley, 2010, p. 406) inreclaiming the common ground between feminisms and social work (Kemp & Brandwein,2010).

NURTURING FEMINIST RESEARCH IN SOCIAL WORK:METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

We agree with Kaufman (2007) that

as feminists we are committed to the dictum that how we study determines what we know. Therefore,it is critical that feminist methodology survive as a critical part of any curriculum if the feministperspecfive is to have any academic base. (p. 681)

Although the existence of uniquely feminist methods remains an open question in the lit-erature, we support Kaufman's articulation of the significance methodology (read here as thetheory and philosophy of knowledge and the research process) holds for feminist research ingeneral and feminist social work research in particular. We understand feminism as "the searchto render visible and to explain patterns of injustice in organizations, behavior, and normativevalues that systemically manifest themselves in gender-differentiated ways" (Ackerly & True,2010, p. 464, italics in original). Social work and feminisms have developed together histori-cally, at least in the United States, and have common perspectives focused on the empowermentof women, antidiscriminatory and antioppressive work, and recognition of the pervasiveness ofviolence that affects women's lives. But social work has been slow to embrace the theoreticaland methodological developments that feminist works offer, particularly with regard to movingbeyond women's issues toward incorporating a dynamic understanding of gender and sexuali-ties (and other markers of identity) as sets of intertwining systems affecting people's lives. Thus,teaching critical feminist methodologies in social work curricula offers strong potential to helpsocial workers develop critical views of the research process as well as many social processesthat affect clients on a daily basis.

Kaufman (2007) suggested that feminist researchers recognize that research is rarely (if ever)value neutral; the way we conceptualize our research shapes our process, and all research is his-torically contextual. Additionally, she offered two considerations: As feminist researchers, weneed to reach beyond disciplinary boundaries and to recognize that those who participate in ourresearch are both active agents as well as subjects in the construction of their worlds. Cook andFonow (2007) developed questions to help students deepen their awareness of various aspects

2 8 0 ANDERSON-NATHE, GRINGHRI, WAHAB

of feminist methodologies. They drew out topics such as the study's rationale, the researcher'sposition within the work, ethical responsibilities, approaches to difference, the roles of partici-pants and the possible dilemmas generated by those roles, and choices regarding representationand dissemination of findings.

We support these approaches to increasing students' conscious engagement of feministmethodologies in new research and critical examination of existing studies and wish to add ourapproach generated from our earlier reviews of articles. In the sections that follow, we developour discussion of three dimensions we examined in feminist social work articles: use of theory,reflexivity and power, binaries and intersectionalities. Each section concludes with an illustrationof how we personally have engaged some of these dimensions in our own work. Table 1 presentsreflective questions researchers and social work students may find useful in terms of evaluatingand framing research studies or findings in the context of these critical concepts.

TABLE 1Suggested Questions for Researchers to Consider

Relevant Critical Concept

Suggested Questions for Researchers to Consider Theory Refiexivity Binary Thought

How do my own interests, biases, and perspectives shape myresearch, including choice of topic, participants, and approach?

Why did I choose this topic? Why do I think it is important tostudy in this way? What personal experiences connect me tothis topic?

What taken-for-granted assumptions are nested inside how I haveframed my study's population or issues of concern? How canI create opportunities for study participants to contradict,expand, or refine these assumptions?

What theories inform my understanding of this issue? Whattheories guide how I plan to study this issue? How doI articulate the ontology and epistemology that ground thisproject?

Why do I approach this topic with this research paradigm andmethods? How does my choice of paradigm reinforce orcontract my own values? How does it potentially constrainwho will be involved or what will be learned?

What is my agenda on this topic? How is it informed by my otherprofessional concerns (IRB, career ambitions, etc.)? How doI present myself and my agenda to participants? Does thisshape how I share decision-making power with them?

What does the theoretical literature associated with my researchquestion suggest about how it might be explored orunderstood? How do I position myself in relation to thisliterature?

How might what I expect to hear, because of my choice ofparadigm, shape the range of experiences or identities I acceptas "legitimate" from the participants? How can I avoid placingparticipants in situations where they must justify theirexperiences to fit my paradigm?

X X

X


THEORY IN FEMINIST SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH

Orme (2003) argued that because social work is generally resistant to theory, our theoretical offer-ings and explanatory powers in research are limited. This limitation may be due to social workdeveloping as a pragmatic, practice-centered discipline with research following suit by empha-sizing professional practice issues at the expense of broader, theoretical, and socially criticalexplanations.

The role of theory in social work feminist practice is complicated not only because of socialwork's broader relationship to theory but also due to tensions between politics and praxis, withpraxis being highly valued in both social work and feminisms (Orme, 2003). The complicatedrole of theory in feminist social work practice extends to feminist social work research where the-ory and practice are understood to be inextricably linked through praxis. Although some authorshave suggested that feminisms' influence on social work practice, teaching, and research hasbeen "almost breathtaking" (Shaw, 1999, p. 114), others have commented that social work lacksan appreciation for the complexities of feminisms and have called for a deeper engagement withfeminist theories (Orme, 2003; Sands & Nuccio, 1992). Despite having related with all threefeminist waves to different degrees (Gray & Boddy, 2010), some suggest that liberal, radical, andpostmodern feminisms (Freeman, 1990; Kemp & Brandwein, 2010; Nes & Iadicola, 1989) char-acterizing feminism's second wave have had a greater influence on social work theory and dis-course than has third-wave feminist discourses of cultural studies, postfeminism, and postcolonialfeminist theory (see Baines, 1997; Barnoff & Moffatt, 2007; Orme, 2003; Sands & Nuccio, 1992).

Recent publications on the history of feminisms and social work in the United States (Kemp &Brandwein, 2010) and the successive waves of feminisms (Gray & Boddy, 2010) highlight keyhistorical moments and social changes that have informed both the development of feminisms andthe role of feminisms in practice and research. Researchers who have recently explored in a broadmanner the relationship between theory and feminist practice/research (Gray & Boddy, 2010;Gringeri, Wahab, & Anderson-Nathe, 2010; Kemp & Brandwein, 2010; Orme, 2003) agree thatsome of the current theoretical (and practical) tensions among feminisms revolve around essen-tializing claims about oppression within critical theories and postmodern and poststructuralistrejection of grand narratives and theories, as well as binaries.

Research articles we deemed exemplary presented theory not only as a framework but alsoas a set of guiding principles for the various steps of the research process. To avoid Orme's(2003) critique of "It's feminist because I say so," we suggest that feminist social work scholarsconsider using theory to frame and ground research. By this, we mean that theory, defined hereas a set of guiding principles, facts, beliefs, and assumptions that explain a phenomenon, servesas a scaffolding of sorts for research decisions and processes, including overall research framing,question formulation, study design, study protocols, analysis, and ethics.

Theory as Scaffolding

Though we have identified a handful of studies in which research is clearly anchored in theory, wenote Few, Stephens, and Rouse-Arnett's (2003) work here to provide another specific example.Few et al. (2003) grounded their research in theory by pulling together an eclectic theoretical lensbased on Black feminist theory, symbolic interactionism, and social ecology, as well as critical


science and critical race theory to examine the challenges Black women researchers encounter infield research with Black women. They specifically used theory to guide their understandings ofBlack women's experiences, including their own; their choice of methods (qualitative), includingthe choice to collect nontraditional forms of data to support women to find their voices withintheir own stories; and the manner in which they navigated their insider and outsider status withstudy participants to gain entry and trust.

Clearly grounding research in theory may also look like making one's epistemology explicit,that is, by discussing the guiding principles, beliefs, and assumptions that inform one's researchapproach and practices of knowing. Whether engaged in positivist, postpositivist, constructivist,or participatory research, theory as it informs research can be engaged via an exploration anddiscussion of the beliefs, values, assumptions, and facts that instruct how we choose to engageresearch participants and the data. Beck and Britto (2006), for example, clearly presented thebeliefs they held (resulting from initial research) about family members of capital offenders whohad received death penalties, including an ethic of care and a belief in the restorative justice notionof storytelling as a meaningful means of establishing histories and time lines. Given the strongfeelings of guilt, fear, shame, distrust, and trauma these family members experienced. Beck andBritto (2006) made conscious methodological choices that would minimize any event of harm orretraumatization.

Theory to Guide the Lens and Study Design

Anchoring research in theory might look like explicitly naming or discussing theories that informthe researcher's understanding or approach to the study. Alternatively, authors might lean ontheory to define an issue or problem, as well as rely on theory to formulate the research ques-tion(s). Theory may also be used to inform and guide the study design and choice of methods.Beck and Britto (2006), for example, leaning on Jaggar's (1983) argument that feminist methodsrequire praxis in part to avoid exploitation and on Gilligan's (1982) view that women's essen-tialist nature is based on an ethic of care, created a study protocol that would not retraumatizeor exploit capital offenders' families in the process of collecting valid and reliable data. Specificprotocol decisions influenced by Jaggar's work included requiring that interviewers familiarizedthemselves with details of the case prior to their meetings with family members (so participantswould not have to be emotionally burdened by telling that portion of their story again) and invitingparticipants to share through storytelling their own emotional reactions to the family members'experiences. Beck and Britto (2006) also used their academic privilege to publish results that"would bring family members' issues to the public agenda" (p. 62). Gilligan's (1982) ethic ofcare informed data collection decisions to choose social workers as interviewers. These inter-viewers also read books on the death penalty prior to interviewing to understand the specificcultural issues, including race, religion, and class, that surround capital cases.

Theory and Analysis

Authors who clearly and explicitly ground their work in theory may also use theory to guide thedata analysis process and procedures. For instance, Ristock (2003) used theories to probe herfindings to understand the ways in which underlying complexities and unquestioned assumptionsshaped the services delivered to lesbians experiencing relationship violence. Specifically, Ristock


leaned on poststructuralism to deconstruct dichotomous categories associated with sexualidentities in the participants' discourse and narratives. Drawing on theory to understand par-ticipants' narratives about their first lesbian relationships, for instance, explicated these women'songoing (and problematic) engagement with heteronormative notions of what constitutes "real"relationships as distinct from relationships of desperation.

One of the motivators for this project was to understand what is currently implied by "feministsocial work research," as well as to then use that understanding to inform change. We hope tobring social work to the broader feminist social science conversations about research to contributesome of our strengths (for instance, praxis) and to learn from the significant issues and tensionsother feminist social science researchers have engaged.

Author's Illustration

What follows is a brief discussion of my (SW's) efforts to address these considerations about theuse of theory in my research, practice, and scholarship associated with female commercial sexwork. Prior to starting my MSW internship 9 years ago, working with commercial sex workers,my socialization around prostitution and pornography was informed by my family's Arab-FrenchCanadian, immigrant, conservative, middle-class values and by my training as a "good" feministby radical feminists who theorized prostitution and pornography as forms of degradation andviolence against women. Although actively involved in the domestic violence movement, I wasnot quite conscious of my own theoretical socialization and lens at that time. It quickly becameapparent through the internship that how the sex workers presented themselves, talked about theirwork, and engaged their lives was in tension with my preconceived notions and beliefs abouttheir realities and lives, as well as about their experiences in the sex industry. Contrary to thereligious, social, and radical feminist values and beliefs I had internalized about prostitution andpornography, the sex workers who trained and taught me and those I worked with did not by anystretch of the imagination view themselves as victims of sex work. Many had experienced vio-lence in their lives, including violence within sex work, yet they did not speak of themselves norsee themselves as victims of prostitution. Some, however, did see themselves as oppressed due toclassism, sexism, misogyny, and racism. Sex workers I have met and worked with over the yearssystematically speak about sex work as work, specifically emotional labor (see Wahab, 2004, foran extended discussion). Sex workers have always spoken to me of choices they made to engagein sex work, including choices within limited options (for example, the choice to sell sexual ser-vices rather than sell drugs or clean toilets). Ultimately, sex workers, not feminists who had neverengaged in sex work, taught me about the complex realities and experiences of people withinthe sex industry, and consequently they profoundly informed my personal life and relationshipsand my social work teaching, research, and practice. This rupture in my belief and value systemfacilitated a deep and powerful quest to better understand my own values and beliefs associatedwith gender and sex in particular, as well as my own queer sexual identity, desires, and beliefs.

Only in hindsight can I appreciate the formidable draw commercial sex work has had for me asa social worker and academic. The possibility and consequent reality that many women claimed tochoose sex work from a place of personal agency (even amid the most desperate of circumstances)rocked my sense of what was possible for me as a gendered, raced, classed, and sexual being.Could it really be that I had a hand in creating my own sexual desires, gender roles, expectations,and relationships? I had been in search of women who were and felt sexually empowered, and I


did not know it. Over the years, I have come to understand that some sex workers feel sexuallyempowered and that others do not. Ultimately, I have come to believe that there is no universal oressential experience of sex work. There are only partial and complicated narratives.

These significant theoretical shifts that happened have also influenced my epistemologicalstance in research and teaching. As a result of these experiences, I have a deep appreciation forhow reality is socially constructed and informed by local, regional, national, political, social, eco-nomic, religious, and other contexts. I believe that all people possess expertise about their lives.I understand research and teaching to be exercises in the creation of knowledge and experiences.I am simultaneously a learner and a teacher at all times.

REFLEXIVITY

Pascale (2010) observed:

Interpretation is always a matter of positionality—how one is situated within networks of power,geographies of privilege, and the histories of experience. It might seem that standards of goodresearch would require scholars to be accountable for the many processes of interpretation involvedin knowledge production, (p. 72)

Interpretation is central to all research and underscores the importance of our awareness ofthe roles of our "values, histories and interests" in the production of knowledge for the socialwork profession (Koch & Harrington, 1998, p. 887). How do I account for myself (history, socialpositions) in the process of social inquiry? What questions, assumptions, and beliefs do I bring tothis process? We must also reflect on how the research question has "defined and limited" whatwe can leam and how the topic might be examined differently (Dowling, 2006, p. 11). Pascale(2010) suggested we reflect on why we are attracted to study people, situations, or events andexamine the different ways we might carry out the study.

These questions suggest the practice of reflexivity, leading us to focus on our relationship toour work, as well as with participants, which is central to feminist epistemology. Pascale (2010)noted two aspects of reflexivity: It is the "recognition of the ways that the self always mediatesthe social world: researchers know only about the world through our own experience of it. On theother hand, reflexivity is also a coiistant awareness of how the social conditions of research affectthe production of knowledge" (p. 71). Reflexivity requires researchers to acknowledge that ourobservations (data collection) and interpretations are filtered through our socially and historicallypositioned selves. Thus, we must develop an ongoing and critical awareness of the social inputsshaping the production of knowledge in our work (Koch & Harrington, 1998; Pascale, 2010).Critical awareness helps researchers bring to the surface the multiple and complex relationshipsand experiences of power that shape our roles in knowledge production and the ways in whichour biographies, interacting with those of our participants, shape the processes and outcomes ofresearch. Reflexivity needs to be an ongoing process of self-observation throughout the researchproject, rather than set responses written into the methods sections of reports and articles.

Takacs (2003) noted that reflexivity helps strengthen the validity or knowledge claims in allresearch:

Through recognizing and analyzing the cultures in which we are positioned, and that therefore can-not help but mold our worldviews, we take steps to become more aware and even more objective.We come to know the world more fully by knowing how we know the world, (p. 29)


This is not merely an abstract exercise in self-awareness for its own sake but is rather a practicein which the researcher attempts to "identify, acknowledge and do something about the limitationsof the research" (Dowling, 2006, p. 12).

Diane Watt's (2007) reflections from her first experience using qualitative methods in a studyshe completed as a graduate student offer an excellent example of reflexivity. She acknowledgedthe importance of being accountable to participants and readers about the decisions she tookduring the research process:

Audiences should have the opportunity to see how the researcher goes about the process of knowledgeconstruction during a particular study. By engaging in ongoing dialogue with themselves throughjournal writing, researchers may be able to better determine what they know and how they think theycame to know it. An introspective record of a researcher's work potentially helps them to take stockof biases, feelings, and thoughts, so they can understand how these may be influencing the research.Making such information available to readers provides them with a means to better evaluate thefindings. Proponents of the openness in qualitative inquiry assert a need to publicly disclose researchdecisions, (p. 84)

Watt (2007), initially uncertain about whether reflexivity would strengthen her work, observedthe following:

I now see that it has helped me to clarify my thinking, values, purposes, and beliefs. I can now be upfront about this so others know where I'm coming from. I cannot shake off my biases, but I can makethem known, (p. 94)

Reflexivity becomes an ongoing practice in which the researcher "articulates personal andpolitical dimensions of the research enterprise so both researcher and audience can recognize it"(Anastas, 2004, p. 60). It also helps illuminate processes of power and privilege as they influenceresearch relationships during the process of the study, as well as beyond the actual research,much in the same way reflexive practice supports social workers in developing antioppressivestrategies in professional practice (Daley, 2010; Dominelli, 2002; Pascale, 2010). Openness andaccountability for these questions of location and power in published works enable the audienceto evaluate the work and its process on its merits-in-context and acknowledge the audience'sparticipation in the construction of knowledge.


Here I (CG) offer a practical, albeit partial, example of reflection based on my work. Most ofmy research effort has focused on multiple aspects of work in the lives of women, usually low-income women. I am drawn to women who work hard, to understand what they value and whatmotivates them to do the kinds of work they do and to highlight how they manage their time,resources, and relationships. As a social worker interested in social policy, I am interested inwomen's work lives in the context of a political discourse that often seems to assume womendo not work hard, especially poor women who are seen as making the wrong choices. Too oftencharacterized as lacking values and a proper work ethic, policy makers often assume poor womenneed to be forced to work rather than receive cash assistance. I have spent much of the last 20 orso years listening to women's life stories about the work they do, how they make ends meet, the


challenges they face, and the hopes they have for themselves and their children. In listening totheir stories, I have learned as much about our commonalities as about our differences.

Who am I, and how did I come to be doing this work? I am White, straight, privileged—awell-educated, able-bodied daughter of two well-educated parents; raised to believe I could dowhatever I set my mind to, unimpeded by obstacles of violence, drugs, or alcohol, undesirablepartners, inadequate education, or poor health; and supported by family and friends—and I havecome to know through these various lenses shaped within my biography. Privilege weaves its waythroughout the work: It allows me to ask questions and to listen to stories not often told (not oftenasked for), but it also holds me back from asking for more details or from even being able toformulate better questions as I feel stunned by the levels of violence in women's lives. Privilegeis present when I encourage some women to pursue their dreams of further education, and it alsolurks implicitly when I do not offer that encouragement to all women. Is it offering false hopeto encourage some women I perceive as unlikely candidates to further their education? Why doI think I can judge that fairly? Why do I think education is a panacea? Reflexivity demands thatI be honest first with myself, realizing that my privilege does indeed travel with me, always likethe invisible knapsack that Mclntosh (1988) identified.

Power is both elusive and ever present in the researcher-researchee relationship. I enter eachrelationship with my security blanket of questions and topics to raise with each woman, but powerinvariably morphs throughout our conversations. I have learned to follow the story as she wantsto share it, knowing that she has full rights over her disclosure; I will understand her experiencesonly as she wants to share them in the moment we are talking. My questions are based on myinterests, but each participant takes them and turns around and answers according to her interestsand experiences. So we each have some power, and each may choose to use it throughout aninterview; some participants eagerly share a great deal of their experiences, whereas others arereticent to answer more than a brief sentence. I may block off 90 minutes for the interview;some may take 2 hours; some may only want to share 45 minutes or so. Across the interview,participants may see me only as a researcher (who offers compensation for participation); othersmay warm up to me as a peer; and others may think of me as a "free therapist" and take advantageof a listening ear.

Reflexivity as a practice pushes me to see the ways in which I enter the process and the researchprocess enters into my story, becoming part of me. I am changed by the process of listening tothe lives of working women; I am motivated to work for change and make my work part of theprocess of change.

INTERSECTIONALITY AND THE DISRUPTIONOF BINARY THOUGHT

Traditionally, professional social work has relied on the maintenance of certain binaries (socialworker/client and empowered/disempowered, among them) at the same time it has opposedthe oppressive conditions sustained by others. Social work research is no different, reinforc-ing binaries in how research questions have been framed to the epistemological assumptionson which these questions have been based. However, as our previous reviews of exemplaryfeminist social work research illustrate, the merits to be realized when social work researchersactively critique binaries and dualistic thinking are profound. As we have stated elsewhere


(Wahab, Anderson-Nathe, & Gringeri, 2012), research that actively destabilizes or challengestaken-for-granted constructions opens the possibility for that research to more fully engage withand report on the complex realities of client groups and study participants.

Identity categories have long been constructed along binary and dichotomous terms—privileged/oppressed, man/woman. White people/people of color, professional/client. In fact,social change movements have often used these and other binary categories to construct unifiedpositions in opposition to one or another form of oppression. The universal category woman, forinstance, has been central to the gains made by the feminist movement in the United States andabroad. The legacy of this and other binary constructs is evident in the social work tradition; theforemost feminist social work journal. Affilia, has as its subtitle "Journal of Women and SocialWork." Dichotomous identity categories offer the potential for solidarity in the assumedly sharedexperience of a group, and they also help narrow the focus of an agenda oriented toward removingoppressive barriers and systems.

As postmodern, poststructuralist, and postcolonial theories have begun to take hold in theacademy, however, critical feminist scholarship has critiqued this reliance on binary construc-tions. For instance, Butler (1990) suggested that gender is best understood not as a fixed identitycategory but rather as an unfolding performance of social expectation, leading feminist scholarsand theorists of gender to question whether woman or man exist as discrete categories and tofocus instead on performances of femininities and masculinities (Connell, 2002; Pascoe, 2007).In fact, Butler (1990) has recommended that the construct of gender around which the early fem-inist movement was built may "work to l imit . . . the very cultural possibilities that feminism issupposed to open up" (pp. 200-201).

Blurring identity categories long assumed to be dichotomous has also allowed for sharperanalysis of these categories' unifying potential. Second-wave feminisms were critiqued for theirreliance on a binary construction of gender that (implicitly, if not explicitly) positioned all womenequally oppressed by structures and institutions of sexism. Feminists of color, lesbian feminists,and others have reconceptualized this assumption of sameness, arguing instead for a criticalunderstanding of intersectionality, or the naming and appreciation of the influences and com-plexity of interiocking identities. As Wilchins (2004) put it, "A political category called Womanmay sound like a good idea in theory, but it hides immense racial, economic, gender, and culturaldifferences within it" (p. 124).

Social work has been somewhat later than its social science cousins to take up this critiqueof unitary and binary constructions (Gringeri, Wahab, & Anderson-Nathe, 2010). Nevertheless,in some comers of social work, intersectionality and the deconstruction of binaries has begun totake hold. Mehrotra (2010), for instance, rightly described intersectionality as "one of the mostsignificant theoretical contributions of feminist studies" (p. 419) and called for greater atten-tion to intersectionality in social work research and practice. Others have similarly taken upthe call in their feminist social work research, troubling binary constructions like global ver-sus local (Kumsa, 2002), essentialized categories of gender and masculinity (McKinnon, Davies,& Rains, 2001), and taken-for-granted exclusionary roles of researcher and researched (Presser,2005). These and other social work researchers illustrate that, as Nagoshi and Brzuzy (2010) sug-gested, "Essentialized constructs of identity are inadequate" for the challenges faced by our field(p. 433).

We support these efforts to dismantle binary constructions in feminist social work researchand education. Indeed, we suggest that highlighting intersectionality and critiquing dichotomous


discourses illustrate several of social work's cardinal values and should therefore be centralfeatures of social work research and teaching. Identity is paramount to social work practice andresearch; just as the National Association of Social Workers (2008) Code of Ethics obligatespractitioners to facilitate clients' self-determination, we argue social work researchers hold thesame expectation for research participants. Troubling binary categorizations reflects one strategyresearchers and practitioners may use to support self-determination, holding open the oppor-tunity for clients and research participants to name their experiences and identities. Forcingclients or participants to conform to our axiomatic binary constructions not only complicatesthe integrity of our knowledge claims but also violates some of social work's most central ethicalprinciples.

In discussing intersectionality and the significance of complicating binary constructions withstudents in our classrooms, we often encounter one of two reactions. Students may jump quicklyon the intersectionality bandwagon, eagerly calling for the dismantling of all social constructsand identity categories. Students in this group pick up on how rigid social and identity categoriescan label and constrain, limiting people's abilities to self-identify. Other students may voice adistinctly different sentiment in which they accept as inevitable that human beings will categorizetheir own and others' experiences and that imagining a world without potentially rigid or divisivesocial constructs like race or gender is naive and largely futile. These voices raise fundamentallyreasonable, though somewhat unsettling, questions: Without categories for social organization,what do we do? How do we know how to interact?

The act of categorizing is not in itself so troubling. Rather, social categories are problematicin the extent to which they become preordained, imposed, and hegemonic. As the social scriptprovided by and for each category is adopted as an a priori identity, individuals' experiences risksilencing. Hence, we recommend that social workers and feminist social work researchers attendto how the categories inherent in their research or practice are experienced by their research par-ticipants or client groups. Rigorous feminist research (and social work) therefore pays attentionto how participants' lived experiences illuminate the categories to which they may be assigned,rather than force the individual to fit into an a priori category.

As part of the reflexive process of writing this article, we reflected on some of the binaryassumptions or constructions that led us into this project and have emerged with greater clar-ity as the work has unfolded. Specifically, we are critical of gender binaries and assumptions ofgender as essentialized to the body. As a mixed-sex cisgendered team (cisgendered indicatingcongruence between a person's gender identity and tbat same person's socially recognized sex),we have wondered about the reception our work will receive; what will be the impact of a manengaging with women in the critique of long-held understandings of feminism within our pro-fession? In fact, our desire to complicate social work's interpretation of feminism (specifically)and gender (more broadly) is borne out of our frustration with how rigidly and unconsciouslyour field has often imposed or reinforced this binary construction. Similarly, our roles as socialwork educators have highlighted for us the difficulties navigating students' often dichotomousor exclusive constructions like race, class, the role(s) of researcher and researched, and more.How have our own identities complicated or facilitated our students' interaction with theseconstructions?

These and other considerations have helped us name and critique the assumptions andunexamined constructs in this research project.



I (BAN) am a teacher and scholar. In the classroom and in my research activities, students andstudy participants read my body and behavior and believe they know something about me. Theysee that I wear a kippah and assume that I must be religiously conservative. They read my uncon-ventionally masculine behavior and assume I must be gay. In both cases, I struggle to reconcilemy identity with the expectations these assumptions carry, attempting to name my own experienceeven as it challenges the binary constructions projected onto me.

In the classroom, students often read me as gay. I watch confusion register on many of theirfaces when I mention my daughter or when I disclose my partner's Vietnamese identity (I identifyas White) but do not disclose my partner's gender. In these moments, their perceptions of myidentity shift. Who do I become for my students? Am I gay? My gender expression suggests tothem that I am, but on hearing other details of my life, they presume heterosexuality, believingbecause of their narratives of race and family that my Asian wife and I conceived our daughtertogether. Do I reconcile this confusion for them?

In my research exploring high-risk sexual behavior among men who have sex with men, par-ticipants have seen my kippah and read me as religiously conservative and therefore inaccessibleand potentially hostile to them. Several have pointedly asked me before beginning an interviewwhether I am gay, whether I can know what they are talking about. Their narratives of sexualorientation and religion are in opposition to one another, and therefore I—as an embodiment ofthat contradiction—become suspect. Do I reconcile this confusion for them?

In these ways and others, I am confronted by (and undoubtedly create for others) the binaryidentity categories imposed on me by others—students, research participants, and even col-leagues. My own identity is one of margins and intersections. I am queer (and gay does notfit); I am a parent {ana father does not fit); I am religious (and conservative does not fit). I carryall these identities into the classroom and into my research, reconciling the tensions betweenthem and the binary categories projected onto me by allowing those tensions to exist in spite ofhow uncomfortable it can feel to be the canvas on which students and participants project theirpreconceived categories. Disclosing the piece of my identity that is linked to my family whileexpressing unconventional masculinity challenges students' conceptions of what constitutes gen-der and sexual orientation. Presenting myself as both religious and queer challenges participants'notions of gay men and religious observance. At times, this is painful; it forces me to sit in thesometimes tremendous discomfort of objectification by my students and study participants as theyseek to "figure me out." But to resolve for them the contradictions between their categories andmy realities risks reinforcing the dichotomies I find so ti-oubling. Do I reconcile this confusion?It depends. Typically, I name it and let it stand, an invitation to deeper conversation.

CONCLUSION

This article reflects our engagement with critical features of exemplary feminist social workresearch. We have reflected on our own research and teaching in light of what we have learnedby examining the state of contemporary feminist social work research. This article offers thosereflections as praxis, a window into the connections between theory and practice in conducting


and teaching about social work research. Although these observations and recommendations may

present the most obvious application for social work researchers and doctoral students planning

careers in research, they are nevertheless also relevant for social work practitioners and students

at the undergraduate or master's degree level, who must learn to critically evaluate and interact

with the research studies whose findings shape practice. To some, what we have proposed may

seem self-evident; many feminists in social work already attend deliberately to these considera-

tions. For social work education as a whole, however, we believe these remain valuable lessons

and insights—even more so for that social work research claiming feminism as a foundational

principle. De Vault (1999) articulated this position well:

Shouldn't good researchers always work in these ways? My answer is "yes," but it must always bea qualified yes—a yes that refuses to set aside these concerns. Even if researchers should alwaysattend to difference and power in their varied manifestations, too often we do not. The hallmark offeminist and other liberatory methodologies is that they aim explicitly at these goals. The concerns,aspirations, and strategies I have discussed here certainly could be thought of as aspects of "good sci-ence"; but in fact, they have not been treated in a sustained manner in more standard methodologicaldiscourses. . . . Thus, labeling these strategies "feminist" or "liberatory" serves two important pur-poses: it announces that these concerns are still too often absent in the production of knowledge, andit points toward the history of activism and liberatory scholarship that has brought them to attention,(p. 231)

This viewpoint is particularly true in the context of social work research, given the strong

overlap between the liberatory potential of critical feminisms and social work's cardinal values

of self-determination and the pursuit of social justice. We hope these reflections support other

feminist social work researchers in deepening their craft, and we believe that by nurturing this

hope in our classrooms and our research projects, social work researchers will be better equipped

to locate their projects firmly in congruence with our profession's most central values.

REFERENCES

Ackerly, B., & True, J. (2010). Back to the future: Feminist theory, activism, and doing feminist research in an age ofglobalization. Women's Studies International Forum, 33, 464-472.

Anastas, I. W. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: Issues and possible answers. Research on Social Work Practice,14, 57-65.

Baines, D. (1997). Feminist social work in the inner city: The challenges of race, class and gender. Aj^/i'a, 12, 297-317.Barnoff, L., & Moffatt, K. (2007). Contradictory tensions in anti-oppression practice in feminist social services. Affilia,

22, 56-70.Beck, E., & Britto, S. (2006). Using feminist methods and restorative justice to interview capital offenders' family

members. Affilia, 21,59-70.Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.Cahill, C, Quijada Cerecer, D. A., & Bradley, M. (2010). "Dreaming of . . . ": Reflections on participatory action research

as a feminist praxis of critical hope. Affilia, 25, 406-416.Connell, R. W. (2002). Gender. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Cook, J. A., & Fonow, M. M. (2007). A passion for knowledge: The teaching of feminist methodology. In S. N. Hesse-

Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 705-712). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Daley, A. (2010). Reflections on reflexivity and critical reflection as critical research practices. Affilia, 25, 68-82.DeVault, M. L. (1999). Liberating method: Feminism and social research. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Dominelli, L. (2002). Anti-oppressive practice in context. In R. Adams, L. Dominelli, & M. Payne (Eds.), Social work:

Themes, issues and critical debates (2nd ed., pp. 3-19). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.


Dowling, M. (2006). Approaches to reflexivity in qualitative research. Nurse Researcher, 13(3), 7-21.Few, A. L., Stevens, D. P, & Rouse-Amett, M. (2003). Sister-to-sister talk: Transcending boundaries and challenges in

qualitative research with Black women. Family Relations, 52, 205-215.Freeman, M. (1990). Beyond women's issues: Feminism and social work. Affilia, 5, 72-89.Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Gray, M., & Boddy, J. (2010). Making sense of the waves: Wipeout or still riding high? Affilia, 25, 368-389.Gringeri, C, Wahab, S., & Anderson-Nathe, B. (2010). What makes it feminist?: Mapping the landscape of feminist

social work research. Affilia, 25, 390-405.Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P (2011). The practice of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Jaggar, A. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, NJ: Roman & Allanheld.Kaufman, D. R. (2007). From course to discourse: Mainstreaming feminist methodology. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.),

Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 681-688). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Kemp, S. P, & Brandwein, R. (2010). Feminisms and social work in the United States: An intertwined history. Affilia,

25,341-364.Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998). Reconceptualizing rigour: The case for reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28,

882-890.Kumsa, M. K. (2002). Negotiating intimacies in a globalized space: Identity and cohesion in young Oromo refugee

women. Affilia, 17,471^96.Mclntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through

work in women's studies (Working Paper No. 189). Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College, Center for Research onWomen.

McKinnon, M., Davies, L., & Raines, P. (2001). Taking account of men in the lives of teenage mothers. Affilia, 16, 80-99.Mehrotra, G. (2010). Toward a continuum of intersectionality theorizing for feminist social work scholarship. Affilia, 25,

417-430.Nagoshi, I. L., & Brzuzy, S. (2010). Transgender theory: Embodying research and practice. Affilia, 25, 431-443.National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/

code.aspNes, J. A., & Iadicola, P. (1989). Toward a definition of feminist social work: A comparison of liberal, radical, and

socialist models. Social Work, 34, 12-21.Orme, J. (2003). 'It's feminist because I say so!': Feminism, social work and critical practice in the UK. Qualitative

Social Work, 2, 131-153.Pascale, C. (2010). Cartographies of knowledge: Exploring qualitative epistemologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you're a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press.Presser, L. (2005). Negotiating power and narrative in research: Implications for feminist methodology. Journal of Women

in Culture and Society, 30, 2067-2090.Ristock, J. L. (2003). Exploring dynamics of abusive lesbian relationships: Preliminary analysis of a multisite, qualitative

study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 3-4, 329-342.Sands, G. R., & Nuccio, K. (1992). Postmodern feminist theory and social work. Social Work, 37, 489-494.Shaw, I. (1999). Seeing the trees for the wood: The politics of evaluation in practice. In B. Broad (Ed.), The politics of

social work research evaluation (pp. 109-126). Birmingham, AL: Venture Press.Takacs, D. (2003). How does your positionality bias your epistemology? The NEA Higher Education Journal, 14(2),

37-38.Wahab, S. (2004). Tricks of the trade: What social workers can learn about female sex workers though dialogue.

Qualitative Social Work, 3, 139-160.Wahab, S., Anderson-Nathe, B., & Gringeri, C. (2012). Joining the conversation: Social work contributions to feminist

research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (2nd ed., pp. 455-474).Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Watt, D. (2007). On becoming a qualitative researcher: The value of reflexivity. The Qualitative Report, 72(1), 82-101.Wilchins, R. (2004). Queer theory, gender theory: An instant primer. Los Angeles, CA: Alyson Books.

Copyright of Journal of Social Work Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Nurturing critical hope in teaching feminist social work research

Documents

Transcript of Nurturing critical hope in teaching feminist social work research