This article considers the influence of sexuality and desire in qualitative research. Feminist researchers promote critical reflexivity in response to traditional social science methodological approaches, which advocate objectivity and neutrality. While reflexivity has become part and parcel of feminist research, an aspect of the subjective experience of doing research requiring more attention is how desire, intimacy and/or sexuality inform the research process. This paper draws on previous studies as well as recent research experiences to argue that desire is a powerful form of communication that can be productive and insightful for our analyses and knowledge production.
BloomL (1998) Under the Sign of Hope: Feminist Methodology and Narrative Interpretation, New York: State University of New York Press.
2.
BrownG (2008) Ceramics, clothing and other bodies: Affective geographies of homoerotic cruising encounters. Social and Cultural Geography9(8): 915–932.
3.
BrowneK (2003) Negotiations and fieldworkings: Friendship and feminist research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies2(2): 133–146.
4.
Burgess A (2011) It’s Not a Parade, It’s a March!: Subjectivities, Spectatorship, and Contested Spaces of the Toronto Dyke March. PhD Thesis, York University, Canada.
5.
BurnsKDaviesC (2009) Producing cosmopolitan sexual citizens on The L Word. Journal of Lesbian Studies13(2): 174–188.
6.
CrenshawK (1991) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Standford Law Review43(6): 1241–1299.
7.
CupplesJ (2002) The field as a landscape of desire: Sex and sexuality in geographical fieldwork. Area34(4): 382–390.
8.
DeanA (2005) Does a lesbian need a vagina like a fish needs a bicycle? Or, would the ‘real’ lesbian please stand up!. Canadian Woman Studies Journal24(2/3): 92–101.
9.
EnglandK (1994) Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional Geographer46(1): 80–89.
10.
Falconer Al-HindiKKawabataH (2002) Toward a more fully reflexive feminist geography. In: MossP (eds) Feminist Geography in Practice: Research and Methods, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 103–115.
11.
FinlayL (2002) ‘Outing’ the researcher: The provenance, process and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research12(4): 531–545.
12.
HarawayD (1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women, New York: Routledge.
13.
HardingS (1987) Feminism and Methodology, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
14.
KatesSBelkR (2001) The meanings of Lesbian and Gay Pride Day: Resistance through consumption and resistance to consumption. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography30(4): 392–429.
15.
MauthnerNDoucetA (2003) Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis. Sociology37(3): 413–431.
16.
McDowellL (1999) Gender, Identity and Place, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
17.
MossP (2002) Feminist Geography in Practice: Research and Methods, Oxford: Blackwell.
18.
NashABainC (2006) Undressing the researcher: Feminism, embodiment and sexuality at a queer bathhouse event. Area38(1): 99–106.
19.
NewtonE (1993) My best informant’s dress: The erotic equation in fieldwork. Cultural Anthropology8(1): 3–23.
20.
OakleyA (1981) Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In: RobertsH (eds) Doing Feminist Research, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 30–61.
21.
ProbynE (1995) Queer belongings: The politics of departure. In: GroszEProbynE (eds) Sexy Bodies: The Strange Carnalities of Feminism, London: Routledge, pp. 1–18.
22.
RamazanogluCwith HollandJ (2002) Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices, London: Sage.
23.
RazackS (1999) Looking White People in the Eye: Gender, Race, and Culture in Courtrooms and Classrooms, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
24.
ReinharzS (1992) Feminist Methods in Social Research, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
Reisman J (1990) Intimacy in same sex friendships. Sex Roles 23(1/2): 65–82.
26.
RobinsonVMeahAHockeyJ (2007) Representing (sex) in the research process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology10(3): 181–194.
27.
RookeA (2009) Queer in the field: On emotions, temporality, and performativity in ethnography. Journal of Lesbian Studies13(2): 149–160.
28.
RoseG (1997) Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography21(3): 305–320.
29.
Ryan-FloodRRookeA (2009) Que(e)rying methodology: Lessons and dilemmas from lesbian lives: An introduction. Journal of Lesbian Studies13(2): 115–121.
30.
SkeggsB (1997) Respectable knowledge: Experience and interpretation. In: SkeggsB (eds) Formations of Class and Gender: Becoming Respectable, London: Sage, pp. 17–40.
31.
StaceyJ (1988) Can there be a feminist ethnography?Women’s Studies International Forum11(1): 21–27.
32.
Sullivan N (2003) A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory. New York: New York University Press.
33.
ValentineG (2002) People like us: Negotiating sameness and difference in the research process. In: MossP (eds) Feminist Geography in Practice: Research and Methods, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 116–126.
34.
VanderbeckR (2005) Masculinities and fieldwork: Widening the discussion. Gender, Place and Culture12(4): 387–402.
35.
Weingarten K (1991) The Discourses of intimacy: Adding a social constructionist and feminist view. Family Process 30(4): 285–305.
