Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research

Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research: The Politics of Location, Interpretation and Publication

In chapter 2 of her book Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research: The Politics of Location, Interpretation and Publication, Gesa E. Kirsch examines the moments and instances of ethical dilemmas in researcher-participants relations and offers some suggestions to resolve or reduce them. She discusses the complexities and stakes involved in the interpretation and representation of research data (primarily the interview responses) in chapter 3.

Some such dilemmas that arise as a result of treating research participants as collaborators/co-researchers are:
The feminist research methodology encourages researchers to maintain a close relation with research participants but at the same time also demands critical scrutiny of participants’ interviews. Sometimes, researcher’s offering of critique and reflection might turn the existing intimacy and collaboration into “disappointment, alienation, and exploitation of participants” (26).

Ethical dilemma also arises when the participants reveal confidential information but do not want the researchers to publicize it. It could be hard for the researchers to decide whether to respect the participants’ request or break the trust and be loyal to the research project by covering the crucial information thus disclosed.

At times, researchers might realize that the participants are not being honest and providing correct information. Dilemma in such cases is whether to stick to participants’ views or act otherwise.

The feeling of being manipulated or exploited might come to researchers as well when they are dealing with the participants from culturally/economically privileged positions. In such a situation, the researcher might not feel the obligation of treating the participants ethically, rather might want to critique them.

Similar dilemma plagues researchers when they find the participants engaged in some problematic behaviors.

Kirsch also brings forth strategies to come to terms with such ethical dilemmas. First in order is to develop realistic and perhaps limited expectations about collaborating with participants while designing qualitative research (36). Readiness on both participants and researchers’ ends to critical feedback; granting participants the right to co-interpretation; simultaneous presentation of participants’ interpretation’; researcher bearing the responsibility of interpretation could be other ways of handling dilemmas. Yet another could be renegotiating the consent of participants in case the research focus or direction changes.

In chapter 3, Kirsch mostly discusses the interpretive conflicts between the researcher and participants which “range from disagreements between researchers and participants about the meaning of research data, such as interview, narratives and observations, to conflict in values and ideology” (45). She elaborates on the complexity involved in making participants the co-interpreters of research data.

Since the participants and researchers come up with different interpretive frameworks while analyzing data, the resulting conflict could have serious consequences. Deciding whose interpretation is valid could be tougher. Representation through researchers’ interpretations alone could be misrepresentation and their empowering intentions could have silencing effects on the participants.

Kirsch sees no way but negotiation, dialogue and granting participants the space in research report to reduce dilemmas or conflicts. But I have some questions and concerns with her recommendation too.

Regarding the suggestion to put participants’ interpretation side by side with researchers’, or produce “multi-vocal” research reports, my concern is that not all research participants would be capable of interpreting their experiences/stories or information. Depending on who the participants and where they are from, at times their interpretations might appear politically naïve and even ignorant. Putting their interpretation side by side with researchers’ could have ironic effect.

Kirsch is constantly emphasizing on researchers’ ethical obligations to participants, research communities, institutions and/or other stakeholders. But my sense is that at times, researchers confront hostilities or threats. My take is that researchers should choose to encounter whatever comes on the way be it hostility or threat. Some of the sensational researchers have been threatened or shot dead for their disclosure of all wrongdoings of oppressive institutions like military or totalitarian government.

The Means of Production: Literacy and Stratification at the Twenty-First Century

Santosh Khadka

The Means of Production: Literacy and Stratification at the Twenty-First Century
-Deborah Brandt

As Brandt mentions, she “explore[s] the issues of access, proficiency and reward of literacy learning” in relation to larger historical and socio-economic conditions in this particular chapter. To that end, she begins the chapter with the general observation that there is a correlation between socio-economic status of individuals and their literacy achievements by which she means to say that literacy and material/political privilege are very closely connected. She then argues that individuals from relatively well-off families have access to resources/means to gain literacy more easily and quickly compared to many other less fortunate folks. Thus, the inequitable distribution of resources/means of production and power across people, families, regions and nations, she implies, is the reason why different individuals gain different types and degrees of literacy/ies which, in turn, help/s to maintain the status quo of social, economic and literacy inequities.

Interestingly, Brandt discusses literacy in this chapter in very materialistic terms. She regards literacy in post-capitalist and information age as labor power, an input, output, a tool, an instrument and means of production, a raw material as well as energy supply of the Information Age. By doing so, she however undermines the fact that there are at least few people in the world who think that literacy is its end.

Brandt backs up her view that class stratification and literacy are closely connected as are resources of an individual’s literacy achievement and nation’s economic system with the findings from two case studies. Her first case study recounts the digital literacy narrative of a male, white American guy named Raymond Branch who hails from a relatively well-off family while the second one presents the Spanish language learning experience of a female, Mexican American lady, Dora Lopez from economically not so-sound family. Through these studies, she shows that because of their differential socio-economic/material conditions, their access to and achievement of types and degrees of literacy varied making a great difference in what they could or not achieve in job market. Raymond had access to computer technology resources at an elite school and its rich surrounding by virtue of his father being a professor. He reaped the full advantage of those available resources and developed expertise in computer programming which he could easily cash in the market. But Dora could not be in the same position because her father was migrant worker and her socio-economic situation did not let her get into a better school and gain a saleable literacy skill. With Raymond and Dora’s literacy narratives, Brandt maintains that inequitable distribution of resources across individuals, families and regions is the root cause of literacy differentials between/among them which, in turn, is responsible for continuing the existing racial, class and sexual and regional disparities /differences.

I agree with Brandt’s argument but with few reservations. Firstly, I have reservation with her methodology which is the kind of reservation people usually have with qualitative research methods. It occurs to me that just two samples/cases might not be enough to make so many generalizations about the relationship between material forces at work and literacy achievement. Granted, the argument and interpretive leaps could be made based on those cases but the question arises whether or not the cases are representative or reflective of the complexity of the issue at hand. For instance, in Dora’s case, it might not be the material forces but flaw in her individual preference/choice of Spanish language literacy over many others which could sell in the market like Branch’s computer programming that she did not succeed economically. As such nowhere does Dora say with Brandt that she regrets her choice or she thinks that she failed.

Secondly, Brandt’s take that Branch’s access to material resources made possible by his father’s education and employment is the sole cause of his success as a computer programmer/professional could also be mistaken in that it discounts Branch’s individual motivation/interest, his diligence and labor or, in short, his agency. Similarly, Brandt’s accusation on Lopez’s socio-economic status as solely responsible factor for her relatively less success as economical agent or instrument could also be flawed. This line of argument again shuts the possibility of an individual transcending or overcoming the economic barriers/hurdles.

But I agree with what she states in the later part of the essay that “access to computers and control over them is unequally distributed in the same ways that traditional literacy has been unequally distributed: by income, race, region and occupation”. While I agree with geo-political disparity in access to technology, I still can’t deny the possibility of an individual crossing the so-called digital divide. Similarly, I challenge the idea that access alone guarantees the success. It could well be the case that many with access do not master the machine while many without access manage to get and gain mastery. This is the case with countries like India which despite its late/difficult access to information technology has already managed to be one of the leading countries in that sector.