Researchers committed to feminist participatory research must grapple with power and vulnerability—both those of other people as well as their own. In this article, the authors argue that in the current context of sharp economic disparity, political polarization, and global conflict, researchers must undertake collaborative and even risk-taking social inquiry in order to learn about alternative lives. The authors highlight the importance of using a feminist participatory methodology with a focus on the interpretive process. Drawing on field research, they explore an innovative approach to analyzing meaning through interpretive focus groups as “safer space.” The following questions are raised: Is there an ethical way to inquire into habits of life that are intentionally kept hidden? And even if individual confidentiality is ensured, what about collective confidentiality and the obligations that researchers have in a context of increasing inequality?
Becker, H.S. (2004). Whose side are we on? In W. K. Carroll (Ed.), Critical strategies for social research (pp. 23-28). Toronto, ON, Canada: CanadianScholar's Press.
2.
Behar, R. (1993). Translated woman: Crossing the border with Esperanza's story. Boston: Beacon.
3.
Buraway, M. (2004). Introduction. Public sociologies: A symposium from Boston College. Social Problems, 51(1), 103-106.
4.
Chavez, L. (1998). Shadowed lives: Undocumented immigrants in American society. New York: Harcourt Brace .
5.
Coffey, A. (1999). The ethnographic self: Fieldwork and the representation of identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Collins, P.H. (1998). Black feminist thought. New York: Routledge.
7.
DeVault, M.L. (1990). Talking and listening from women's standpoint . Social Problems, 37, 96-116.
8.
DeVault, M.L. (1999). Liberating method: Feminism and social research . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
9.
Dodson, L. (1998). Don't call us out of name: The untold lives of women and girls in poor America. Boston: Beacon.
10.
Dodson, L., & Schmalzbauer, L. (2005). Poor women and habits of hiding: Participatory methods in poverty research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 949-959.
11.
Du Bois, W.E.B. (1903). The souls of Black folk. Millwood, NY: Kraus-Thomson.
12.
Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S., & Wong, L. (2000). For whom: Qualitative research, representations, and social responsibilities. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 107-131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
14.
Freire, P. (1981). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum Press.
15.
Gallagher, C.A. (2000). White like me? Methods, meaning, and manipulation in the field of White studies. In F. W. Twine & J. W. Warren (Eds.), Racing research, researching race: Methodological dilemmas in critical race studies (pp. 67-92). New York: New York University Press.
16.
Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2001). Power and knowledge. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 70-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Gorelick, S. (1991). Contradictions of feminist methodology. Gender and Society, 5(4), 459-476.
18.
Gubrium, J.F., & Holstein, J.A. (1997). The new language of qualitative method. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
Harding, S. (1991). Whose science, whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. New York: Cornell Press.
20.
Hawkesworth, M. (1989). Knowers, knowing, known: Feminist theory and claims of truth. Signs, 14(3), 533-557.
21.
Hurtado, A. (1996). Strategic suspensions: Feminists of color theorize the production of knowledge. In N. Goldberger , J. Tarule, B. Clinchy, & M. Belenky (Eds.), Knowledge, difference and power (pp. 372-392). New York: Basic Books.
22.
Kirsch, G. (1999). Ethical dilemmas in feminist research: The politics of location, interpretation, and publication. Albany: State University of New York Press.
23.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies . In N. K. Denzin & Y. B. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 257-278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Lal, J. ( 1996). Situating locations: The politics of self, identity, and other in living and writing the text. In D. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork (pp. 185-214). Boulder, CO: Westview.
25.
Lykes, B. (1989). Dialogue with Guatemalan Indian women: Critical perspectives on constructing collaborative research. In R. K. Unger (Ed.), Representations: Social construction of gender (pp. 167-185). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
26.
Lykes, M.B., & Coquillon, E. (2006). Participatory and action research and feminisms: Towards transformative praxis. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Madriz, E. (2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. B. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 835-850). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
29.
Mertens, D.M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformativeemancipatory perspective. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods (pp. 135-163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Mies, M. (1983). Towards a methodology for a feminist research . In G. Bowles & R. D. Klien (Eds.), Theories of women's studies (pp. 117-139). Boston: Routledge.
31.
Oakley, A. (1998). Gender, methodology and people's way of knowing: Some problems with feminism and the paradigm debate in social science. Sociology, 32(4), 707-731.
32.
Patai, D., & Gluck, S. B. (Eds.). (1991). Women's words: The feminist practice of oral history. New York: Routledge.
33.
Pini, B. (2004). On being a nice country girl and an academic feminist: Using reflexivity in rural social research. Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 169-179.
34.
Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 324-339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
Schmalzbauer, L. (2005). Striving and surviving: A daily life analysis of Honduran transnational families. New York: Routledge.
37.
Scott, J. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38.
Simpson, J.S. (1996). Easy talk, White talk, back talk: Some reflections on the meanings of our words. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography , 25(3), 372-389.
39.
Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
40.
Stacey, J. (1991). Can there by a feminist ethnography? In D. Patai & S. B. Gluck (Eds.), Women's words: The feminist practice of oral history (pp. 111-119). New York: Routledge.
41.
Wasserfall, R.R. (1993). Reflexivity, feminism, and difference. QualitativeSociology, 15(1), 150-168.
42.
Wolf, M. (1992). Thrice told tale: Feminism, postmodernism, and ethnographic responsibility. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
