This paper is a response to scholars who have called for exploring and interrogating new strategies of data collection and new approaches to more traditional methods, such as interviewing in the context of the internet. Drawing on feminist standpoint theory, ‘reflexive email interviewing’ is proposed as a method for feminist research. The method is illustrated using a recent case study of email interviews with self-identified women who are members of World Pulse, an online community that aims to unite and amplify women's voices worldwide. Through this case study, issues of power and resistance in the researcher/researched relationship and of participant reflexivity are interrogated. Lastly, criteria for reflexive email interviewing are proposed, including 1) strategies to interrogate and disrupt power hierarchies within the research process, 2) researcher reflexivity as a continuous part of the research process, and 3) continued invitations for participants to directly reflect on and respond to the research process. Reflexive questions are offered for researchers to use during research design and in each phase of their research process to ensure reflexivity is achieved.
BhavnaniK., and TalcottM., 2012. Interconnections and configurations: toward a global feminist ethnography. In Hesse-BiberS.N., ed. Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 135–153.
2.
BriggsC.L., 1986. Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
CallawayH., 1992. Ethnography and experience: gender implications in fieldwork and texts. In OkelyJ., and CallawayH., eds. Anthropology and Autobiography.New York: Routledge Chapman Hall, pp. 29–49.
4.
CollinsP.H., 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment.New York: Routledge.
5.
DanielsJ., 2009. Rethinking cyberfeminism(s): race, gender, and embodiment. Women's Studies Quarterly, 37(1), pp. 101–124.
6.
DeVaultM.L., and GrossG., 2012. Feminist qualitative interviewing: experience, talk, and knowledge. In Hesse-BiberS.N. ed. Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 206–236.
7.
FinlayL., 2002. ‘Outing’ the researcher: the provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), pp. 531–545.
8.
FrostN., and ElichaoffF., 2014. Feminist postmodernism, poststructuralism, and critical theory. In Hesse-BiberS.N., ed. Feminist Research Practice: A Primer.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 42–72.
9.
HarawayD., 1988. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), pp. 575–599.
10.
HardingS., 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women's Lives.Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
11.
HardingS., 2004. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies.New York: Routledge.
12.
HartsockN., 1983. Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism.Boston: Northeastern University Press.
13.
Hesse-BiberS.N., ed., 2014. Feminist Research Practice: A Primer.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
14.
Hesse-BiberS.N., and PiatelliD., 2012. The feminist practice of holistic reflexivity. In Hesse-BiberS.N., ed. Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 557–582.
15.
IllingworthN., 2001. The internet matters: exploring the use of the internet as a research tool. Sociological Research Online, 6(2). Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.Uk/6/2/illingworth.html [last accessed 8 August 2015].
16.
JamesN., and BusherH., 2006. Credibility, authenticity and voice: dilemmas in online interviewing. Qualitative Research, 6(3), pp. 403–420.
17.
JamesN., and BusherH., 2009. Online Interviewing.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.
18.
KazmerM.M., and XieB., 2008. Qualitative interviewing in internet studies: playing with the media, playing with the method. Information, Communication and Society, 11(2), pp. 257–278.
19.
LetherbyG., and ZdrodowskiD., 1995. ‘Dear Researcher’: the use of correspondence as a method within feminist qualitative research. Gender and Society, 9(5), pp. 576–593.
20.
LinabaryJ.R., 2013. Voicing online: catalysts and constraints for women's empowerment.MA. Chico: Communication Studies, California State University, Chico.
21.
LinabaryJ.R., and HamelS.A., 2014. Voicing online: conditions and catalysts for the emergence of women's voices. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Western States Communication Association, 14–18 February. Anaheim.
22.
MannC., and StewartF., 2000. Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Researching Online.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.
23.
McCoydJ., and KersonT.S., 2006. Conducting intensive interviews using email: a serendipitous comparative opportunity. Qualitative Social Work, 5(3), pp. 389–406.
24.
MehoL.I., 2006. E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: a methodological discussion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), pp. 1284–1295.
25.
MishlerE.G., 1986. Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
26.
NaplesN.A., and GurrB., 2014. Feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: approaches to understanding the social world. In Hesse-BiberS.N., ed. Feminist Research Practice: A Primer.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 14–41.
27.
NewsomV., and LengelL.B., 2004. The culture of computing: gender online as contained empowerment. Conference paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, 27–31 May. New Orleans.
28.
O'Brien HallsteinL., 2000. Where standpoint stands now: an introduction and commentary. Women's Studies in Communication, 23(1), pp. 1–15.
29.
PennebakerJ.W., ColderM., and SharpL.K., 1990. Accelerating the coping process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(3), pp. 528–537.
30.
ReayR., 1996. Insider perspectives or stealing the words out of women's mouths: interpretation in the research process. Feminist Review, 53, pp. 57–73.
31.
ReinharzS., 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research.New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
SmithD.E., 1987. Women's perspective as a radical critique of sociology. In HardingS., ed. Feminism and Methodology.Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 84–96.
33.
StanleyL., and WiseS., 1993. Breaking Out Again: Feminist Ontology and Epistemology.London: Routledge.
34.
van DoornN., 2011. Digital spaces, material traces: how matter comes to matter in online performances of gender, sexuality and embodiment. Media, Culture & Society, 33(4), pp. 531–547.
35.
WhiteM.I., 2003. Taking note of teen culture in Japan: dear diary, dear fieldworker. In BestorT., SteinhoffP., and BestorV., eds. Doing Fieldwork in Japan.Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, pp. 21–35.
36.
WoodJ.T., 1992. Gender and moral voice: moving from women's nature to standpoint epistemology. Women's Studies in Communication, 15(1), pp. 1–24.
