Women's empowerment is a central aim of feminist action research. However, due to the many contradictory discourses of empowerment, it has become a contested concept. Drawing on poststructuralist theories of power-knowledge, discourse and subjectivity, this article critically analyses the discourses identified in an Australian feminist action research project involving rural women, academics and industry partners. This project aimed to empower women to discuss and use interactive communication technologies (ICTs). This analysis highlights the contradictory effects of the egalitarian and expert discourses that were identified, and the multiple, often conflicting, subject positions that were taken up by the researchers and participants. Our analysis suggests that discourses of empowerment and disempowerment intersect and interpenetrate one another, and highlights some of the dangers and contradictions associated with feminist participatory action research. We argue that a poststructuralist approach to analysis and critical reflexivity can lessen the `impossible burden' on academic feminists engaged in emancipatory research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acker, J., Barry, K. & Esseveld, J. (1991). Objectivity and truth: Problems in doing feminist research. In M. Fonow, & J. Cook (Eds.), Beyond methodology. Feminist scholarship as lived research (pp. 133-153). Bloomington: Indiana University Press .
2.
Alston, M. (1995). Women on the land, the hidden heart of Australia. Kensington: University of New South Wales Press .
3.
Ang, I. (1995). I'm a feminist but... `Other' women and postnational feminism. In B. Caine & R. Pringle (Eds.), Transitions. New Australian feminisms (pp. 57-73). St Leonards: Allen and Unwin .
4.
Bhavnani, K.-K. (1988). Empowerment and social research: Some comments . Text, 8 (1-2), 41-50 .
5.
Cohen, S. (1996). Mobilising communities for participation and empowerment. In J. Servaes, T. Jacobson, & S. White (Eds.), Participatory communication for social change (pp. 223-248). New Delhi: Sage .
6.
Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
7.
Deutchman, I. (1991). The politics of empowerment . Women and Politics, 11(2), 1-18 .
8.
Diamond, I. & Quinby, L. (1988). Introduction. In I. Diamond & L. Quinby (Eds.), Feminism and Foucault. Reflections on resistance (pp. ix-xix). Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press .
9.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Oxford: Polity Press .
10.
Foucault, M. (1976). The history of sexuality. An introduction. London: Penguin .
11.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977. (C. Gordon Ed.). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf .
12.
Fraser, N. (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory. Oxford: Polity Press .
13.
Gatenby, B. & Humphries, M. (1996). Feminist commitments in organisational communication: Participatory action research as feminist praxis . Australian Journal of Communication, 23(2), 73-87 .
14.
Gatenby, B. & Humphries, M. (2000). Feminist participatory action research: Methodological and ethical issues . Women's Studies International Forum, 23(1), 89-105 .
15.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
16.
Gillman, M. (1996). Empowering professionals in higher education? In B. Humphries (Ed.), Critical perspectives on empowerment (pp. 99-116). Birmingham: Venture Press .
17.
Gore, J. (1992). What we can do for you! What can `we' do for 'you'? Struggling over empowerment in critical and feminist pedagogy. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 54-73). New York: Routledge .
18.
Gore, J. (1993). The struggle for pedagogies. Critical and feminist discourses as regimes of truth. New York: Routledge .
19.
Grace, M., Lundin, R. & Daws, L. (1996). Women and networking: Women's voices from elsewhere. Brisbane: Centre for Policy and Leadership Studies in Education, Queensland University of Technology .
20.
Hayes, L. (1994). Gender and communication: Power as an influencing factor in gender and communication . Australian Communication Review, 14(4), 47-61 .
21.
Hoff, J. (1994). Gender as a postmodern category of paralysis . Women's Studies International Forum, 17(4), 443-447 .
22.
Humphries, B. (1994). Empowerment and social research: Elements for an analytic framework. In B. Humphries & C. Truman (Eds.), Re-thinking social research. Anti-discriminatory approaches in research methodology (pp. 185-204). Aldershot: Avebury .
23.
Humphries, B. (1996). Contradictions in the Culture of Empowerment. In B. Humphries (Ed.), Critical Prespectives on Empowerment (p. 16). Birmingham: Venture Press .
24.
Humphries, B. (2000). From critical thought to emancipatory action. In C. Truman, D. Mertens, & B. Humphries. Research and Inequality (pp.179-189). London: UCL Press .
25.
Jacques, R. (1992). Critique and theory building. Producing knowledge `from the kitchen' . Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 582-606 .
26.
Jennings, L. & Graham, A. (1996). Exposing discourses through action research. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), New directions in action research (pp. 165-181). London: The Falmer Press .
27.
Jones, K. (1990). Citizenship in a woman-friendly polity. Signs . Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 15(4), 781-812 .
28.
Kenway, J. & Modra, H. (1992). Feminist pedagogy and emancipatory possibilities. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 138-166). New York: Routledge .
29.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart. Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the post-modern. New York: Routledge .
30.
LeCompte, M. (1995). Some notes on power, agenda, and voice: A researcher's personal evolution towards critical collaborative research. In P. McLaren & J. Giarelli (Eds.), Critical theory and educational research (pp. 91-112). Albany: State University of New York Press .
31.
Lennie, J. (2000). Voice and silence in an email conversation group involving rural and urban women in Australia . Women's Organisations and the Building of Civil Society in the Twenty-First Century: An International Perspective, Electronic Conference by Global Network on Women's Advocacy and Civil Society. Retrieved from http://www.philanthropy.org/GN/KEN/gntext/
32.
Lennie, J. (2001). Troubling empowerment: An evaluation and critique of a feminist action research project involving rural women and interactive communication technologies. PhD thesis, The Communication Centre, Queensland University of Technology.
33.
Maguire, P. (2001). Uneven ground: Feminisms and action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research. Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 59-69). London: Sage .
34.
Martin, M. (1994). Developing a feminist participative research framework: Evaluating the process. In B. Humphries & C. Truman (Eds.), Re-thinking social research. Anti-discriminatory approaches in research methodology (pp. 123-143). Aldershot: Avebury .
35.
Martin, M. (1996). Issues of power in the participatory research process. In K. de Koning & M. Martin (Eds.), Participatory research in health. Issues and experience (pp. 82-93). London and New Jersey: Zed Books .
36.
McWilliam, E., Lather, P., & Morgan, W. (1997). Head work, field work, text work: A textshop in new feminist research. Brisbane: Centre for Policy and Leadership Studies, Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology .
37.
Mies, M. & Shiva, V. (1993). Ecofeminism. Melbourne: Spinifex .
38.
Opie, A. (1992). Qualitative research, appropriation of the `other' and empowerment . Feminist Review, 40, 52-69 .
39.
Parpart, J. (1995). Deconstructing the development `expert'. Gender, development and the `vulnerable groups'. In M. Marchand & J. Parpart (Eds.), Feminism/postmodernism/development (pp. 221-243). London and New York: Rout-ledge .
40.
Parpart, J. & Marchand, M. (1995). Exploding the canon: An introduction/conclusion. In M. Marchand & J. Parpart (Eds.), Feminism/postmodernism/development (pp. 1-22). London and New York: Routledge .
41.
Peters, M. & Marshall, J. (1991). Education and empowerment: Postmodernism and the critique of humanism . Education and Society, 9(2), 123-134 .
42.
Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage .
43.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press .
44.
Rural Women's Unit (1996). Women in rural Australia . A report from a national rural women's stakeholder meeting 23-24 January, 1996, Canberra: Department of Primary Industries and Energy.
45.
Sarkissian, W., Cook, A. & Walsh, K. (1997). Community participation in practice. A practical guide. Murdoch, Western Australia: Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Murdoch University .
46.
Scheyvens, R. & Leslie, H. (2000). Gender, ethics and empowerment: Dilemmas of development fieldwork . Women's Studies International Forum, 23(1), 119-130 .
47.
Sheil, H. (2000). Growing and learning in rural communities. Churchill, Victoria: Centre for Rural Communities, Monash University .
48.
The Rural Women and ICTs Research Team (1999). The new pioneers: Women in rural Queensland collaboratively exploring the potential of communication and information technologies for personal, business and community development. Brisbane: The Communication Centre, Queensland University of Technology .
49.
Treleaven, L. (2001). The turn to action and the linguistic turn: Towards an integrated methodology. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research. Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 261-272). London: Sage .
50.
Truman, C., Mertens, D., & Humphries, B. (2000). Research and inequality. London: UCL Press .
51.
Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. Cambridge: Polity Press .
52.
Walkerdine, V. (1986). Post-structuralist theory and everyday social practices: The family and the school. In S. Wilkinson (Ed.), Feminist social psychology: Developing theory and practice (pp. 57-76). Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire: Open University Press .
53.
Walkerdine, V. (1990). Schoolgirl fictions. London: Verso .
54.
Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Cambridge: Blackwell .
