Feminist Research Ethics

Feminist Research Ethics From Theory to Practice 29 Anna Karin Kingston Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practicing Feminist Research Ethics: Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Empowering Women Who Have Experienced Partner Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Power Dynamics Documented by Pathway Researchers in Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From Individual to Team Research: Dealing with Intimate Involvement Dilemma . . . . . . . Feminist Ethics and Critical Pedagogy in Student-Community Research Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conflicting Interests in Participatory Action Research on Intimate Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Power Relations Dilemma in Canadian Disability Feminist Collaborative Project . . . . . . . . Mothers of Special Needs: Reflections from an “Insider” Researcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532 534 537 537 539 539 540 542 543 544 546 547 Abstract Feminists endeavor to conduct research through a gender conscious prism while challenging patriarchal structures in society. The topic “feminist ethics” is well documented in the literature; however, “feminist research ethics” is less so. The empirical practice of applying a feminist ethics in research has hitherto not received large attention from feminist scholars as the debate instead tends to focus on underpinning philosophical theories. Some feminists argue that it is unethical not to apply a gender perspective in all research regardless of discipline. This standpoint may suggest that all feminist researchers, by virtue of claiming to be feminists, consider themselves adhering to a feminist research ethics while conducting their research. There is, however, a myriad of feminisms and subsequent research methods which challenge the notion of a uniform feminist A. K. Kingston (*) School of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland e-mail: a.kingston@ucc.ie © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Iphofen (ed.), Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2_64 531 532 A. K. Kingston research ethics. This chapter attempts to address some key aspects on the topic, by firstly introducing the reader to some of the feminist theories which underpin a feminist ethical approach to social scientific research. I will then continue to discuss examples of practices of feminist ethics in research internationally. There is growing concern among contemporary feminists about how research is conducted, who is involved, and most importantly who benefits from research results. To illustrate these ethical dilemmas, I will also discuss my own PhD research, a feminist ethnography documenting the experiences of 18 mothers of children with special needs in the Republic of Ireland. Finally, drawing from these documented practical experiences, I will summarize suggested recommendations for researchers who aim to pursue research that adheres to feminist research ethics. Keywords Feminism · Empowerment · Reciprocity · Reflexivity · Ethics of care · Feminist ethnography · Feminist participatory action research Introduction Revaluing and appreciating women’s participation in research are important cornerstones of feminist ethics. Furthermore, empowerment, reflexivity, and reciprocity are three key principles of feminist research. Firstly, empowering research is part of the feminist agenda challenging often male-dominated hierarchical conventional research models and encouraging more equal relationships between the researcher and the research participant. Asking women to participate in research is seen by some feminists to encourage personal empowerment and bring about changes in women’s lives. Mary Maynard (1994) concurs with Anne Opie’s (1992) argument regarding facilitating empowerment in research: firstly, by women contributing to tell their stories and making visible a social issue; secondly, there is the potential therapeutic effect this may have on the woman who reflects on and reevaluates her experience in the interview; and, thirdly, through the “generally subversive outcome that these first two consequences may generate” (p. 17). Kelly et al. (1994) also suggest that following up with the women, asking them if they did benefit from taking part, would better inform researchers. “We would then be in a much stronger position to develop appropriate conceptions of what kinds of empowerment are possible through research” (p. 37). Traditionally, feminists have focused on the empowerment of women by placing their lives at the center of their analysis. However, this feminist research approach has also come to encompass empowering members of other marginalized groups in society who suffer oppression due to class, race, ethnicity, religion, (dis)ability, age, and sexuality. A second principle of feminist research is the researcher’s position in relation to the research and how this is reflected upon. Researchers practicing reflexivity are aware of their personal/cultural/social identities and what these bring to the research project. Reflexivity demands that the feminist researcher employs a self-critical 29 Feminist Research Ethics 533 analysis and articulates the same transparently throughout the research process. Thirdly, and related to both empowerment and reflexivity, is reciprocity. A reciprocal relationship between researchers and research participants is one of the core values of feminist research. Reciprocity entails giving something back to research participants, very often recruited from within vulnerable communities, by aiming to ensure that the research is mutually beneficial. Reciprocity also concurs with the value of reflexivity as the researcher continually reflects on the power dimension in the research relationship. These feminist principles, however, bring about their own challenges, increasingly documented by social scientists. As there is not one set definition of feminism, there also are various theories on feminist research methods. It is also important to note that researchers who do not claim to be feminists may still adhere to the principles of empowerment, reflexivity, and reciprocity while conducting social scientific research. One ethical research principle, however, uniting contemporary feminist and majority social scientists is the endeavor of “not doing harm” to research participants, conscious of exploitative positivist studies done to vulnerable members of society in the past. Many feminist researchers applying a feminist research ethics aim to go further than “not doing harm” to research participants. Knowledge production in feminist research should then be contributing to “doing good” and make a difference in the lives of the researched, with researchers taking a political stance advocating a social change. Focus has also shifted to the emotional rapport between the researcher and the research participant with a stronger commitment to do research “with” or “for” participants, rather than “on” them. Furthermore, a consensus among feminists is the acknowledgment that feminist research has its limits in changing patriarchal hierarchical structures within society at large. Spalter-Roth and Hartmann (1999), for example, discuss how feminist researchers have reflected on their own ability to bring about social change. The main concern, they argue, is to “reveal the agency of the women we study and the economic, ideological, and political context in which they make their lives” (p. 340). The practical aspect of how to apply feminist ethics in data collection, analysis, and reporting continues to be debated among feminist scholars with their positions varying according to philosophical viewpoints. It would be an impossible task to summarize all various and numerous approaches to feminist ethics in this chapter as there is an ongoing, and in my opinion, energizing debate informing the future of feminisms and its impact on research practice. While old and new versions of feminist epistemologies emerge and merge, core principles of feminist research practices remain: empowerment with a focus on marginalized people and ethical responsibilities in knowledge production. This chapter will address some of the key arguments in the current debate on feminist research and the challenges feminist researchers encounter in practice while attempting to subscribe to feminist research ethics. A brief summary of some feminist theoretical approaches in research will be outlined, followed by examples of how feminist researchers have applied these theories in practice. Challenges and dilemmas encountered in these international case studies will be discussed, including my experience of researching the lived experiences of 18 mothers of children with autism, ADHD, and/or Down syndrome 534 A. K. Kingston in the Republic of Ireland. These examples are chosen for the purpose of this chapter with a focus on practical research experiences, and I acknowledge that there are numerous other feminist studies that could have be discussed instead. Theoretical Background The 1960s and 1970s saw feminists and other scholars challenging a positivist hierarchical research approach which had dominated social sciences since the early 1900s. The so-called “objective” and “politically neutral” research methodologies were considered part of a patriarchal research discourse ignoring women’s lived experiences and voices. This “gender and value neutral” research approach viewed the social world as objectively fixed where researchers collected data and produced what was considered “true and unbiased” knowledge. Furthermore, second-generation feminists challenged perceived “male-biased” research and became researchers/ activists highly critical of unequal gendered power relations in the research process. Feminist scholars put women center stage, claiming that the “personal was political” while rejecting the notion of objectivity and value-free research. Feminist policy researchers emphasized the political necessity of using methodologies in order to bring about social change. A majority of feminists at this time considered women’s traditional roles within the home as part of patriarchal oppression and believed that making women visible in research would lead to emancipation and access to public spheres hitherto dominated by men. A feminist epistemology, defined as a theory about knowledge and how we know what we know (Harding 1987), challenging patriarchy’s social construction of gendered roles, evolved to encompass other power inequalities in society on the grounds of class, race, ethnicity, sexuality, age, and (dis)ability. Knowledge itself was considered a social construction and a feminist standpoint theory emerged with a focus on how knowledge production is influenced by physical/social location and cultural/historical positions. Feminists influenced by postmodernist and poststructuralist theorists rejected all forms of binary/dualistic entities that could facilitate hierarchical oppression. Other categories of difference were considered by recognizing the fluidity and complexities of multiple intersectional identities. Postmodern feminists, while critiquing feminism as a political movement underpinned by universalist and essentialist notions, nevertheless emphasized the possibilities of empowerment by using feminist research methods. Deveaux (1999), among others, argued for a feminist methodology focusing on women’s agency, as opposed to viewing them as powerless victims. In doing this, feminist researchers can challenge power relations and enable political activism. Arguments for a “strong objectivity” was introduced but in the form of a “strong reflexivity” (Harding 1991). A “strongly reflexive” feminist researcher then continuously reflects ethically on epistemological and ontological assumptions in the knowledge production. The principle of reflexivity, where the researcher continually reflects on ethical decision-making during the research process, is one of the most important cornerstones of feminist research. This is closely linked to a feminist approach referred to 29 Feminist Research Ethics 535 as an “ethic of care.” This care-based ethical theory, stemming from Carol Gilligan’s work on different gendered “moral” voices (1982) and Nel Noddings’ discussion of ethical responsibility in relationships (1984), further challenged notions of a “detached” researcher. Women, according to Gilligan, formulate care values and priorities differently to men which shapes an understanding of interdependence between humans. Noddings sees caring as women’s response to ethical decisions and differentiate between an ethics based on rights and justice (the voice of the father) and a moral ethics, which she has called “the mother’s voice (Preissle 2007). Feminists adhering to an ‘ethic of care’ then view relationships between the researcher and the participants as one of the most important considerations in research, where the researcher has a caring responsibility to treat participants empathetically. Gilligan (2011) argues that an ethic of care is even more important today, referring to the reality of “interdependence and the cost of isolation; we know that autonomy is an illusion - that people’s lives are interconnected” (pp. 17–18). Edwards and Mauthner (2002) concur with the argument that feminist discussions of the research process have a lot in common with the theory of an ethics of care where daily life dilemmas are shaped by different social contexts and each experience generates different ethical perspectives. The authors address ethical dilemmas in qualitative social research from a feminist perspective and suggest guidelines for ethical research practice grounded in a feminist ethics of care. They argue that while there is a rich bulk of literature on feminist ethics, there is less focus on dilemmas encountered in practice by researchers adhering to feminist research ethics. They also attribute a rise in concern with research ethics to factors such as academic institutions’ fear of litigation as well as being “rooted in a genuine and legitimate concern with issues of power” (p. 18). Scholars with a long involvement in the feminist movement contribute to the discussion on feminist research ethics by reflecting on core themes and issues. One of these writers is Judith Preissle, in a piece called “Regrets of a Women’s Libber” (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2007), who sees feminist research ethics as “self-conscious frameworks for moral decision making – helping decide whether decisions are right or wrong by feminist values and standards” (p. 205). For Preissle, the principles of an ethical framework “involve justice for women, care for human relationships, and a commitment to finding the political in the personal” (p. 205). Oakley (2016), reflecting on her classic publication from 1981, “Interviewing Women: a contradiction in terms?,” admits that the “friendship” relationship between researcher and researched was not sufficiently discussed at the time. Building rapport between researchers and participants is, however, a current contested topic among feminists. Duncombe and Jessop (2012), for example, suggest that this aspect of feminist research relationships has led to suggestions that the interviewer, in order to encourage participation, “fakes friendship.” The authors argue that the “skills of doing rapport,” in this sense, has been commodified (2002, pp. 120–121). Oakley disagrees and perceives the suggestion that researchers would force participants to make disclosures during interviews due to “faked” friendship as “patronizing.” The notion of “the gift,” Oakley argues, in the researcher-researched relationship is helpful in this discussion. The participant then gives the researcher a narrative, a life story, with 536 A. K. Kingston an understanding that they will not in return receive control of the research product (Oakley 2016, p. 208). Some feminists who promote empowering research argue that oral history, depending on how the study is designed, may encourage collaboration and emancipation. For example, it is suggested that “the decentering of authority resonates with many feminists. . .” and “. . .also carries with it a set of politics and a host of ethical considerations linked to the empowerment of research subjects and the social activist component of feminist research” (Leavy 2007, p. 168). Participants then are more likely to feel empowered if they are fully included and have control over the narrative: Likewise, as feminism is an earned political perspective, the value of retaining ownership over the resulting knowledge so that it can best serve the greater goals of feminism also makes sense for many researchers and their participants. The various sets of choices all have ethical considerations, and none are simply right or wrong, better or worse, more or less “feminist.” (Leavy 2007, p. 170) Members of the UK “Women’s Workshop” discuss the relevance of an ethics of care, and subsequent feminist research ethics, in their practical research experience in a special issue of Women’s Studies International Forum (Philip and Bell 2017). A common agreement among the contributors is that procedural or institutional ethics cannot cater for the range of different ethical issues often encountered when working in the field. This would include emotionally sensitive encounters that both researcher and participant may experience during the research. One of the authors, Hoggart (2017), discusses ethical dilemmas when working in partnership with policymakers and practitioners. Her applied social research projects in the field of sexual health highlight challenges for the researcher inflicted by the unequal power relationship with the funder for the project and the restrictive policy framework in place. Nevertheless, Hoggart argues that “feminist reflexivity at each stage of the research process should permit us to claim partial knowledge. This is arguably infinitely better than making no knowledge claims at all, or making unrealistic positivist claims to objectivity and truth” (Cited in Philip and Bell 2017, p. 73). The rigidity of institutional ethics research policies is also criticized by Australian researchers Halse and Honey (2005) who document the challenges they faced when attempting to convert a research proposal on “anorexic girls” into a form that would win ethics committee approval. The researchers struggled, for example, with the creation of a consent form that assumed that “anorexic girls” form a homogeneous population, disregarding the moral complexities involved for both researchers and participants. Halse and Honey conclude that there is no simple answer to the concerns they raise. Our point is political. Despite advances in the theorizing and practice of feminist research, it is easy to underestimate or to fail to see the ways in which the social, organizational, and cultural practices of the research ethics process work as conceptual and concrete barriers that impede feminist research approaches and position feminist researchers in ideologically uncomfortable spaces. (2005, p. 2160) 29 Feminist Research Ethics 537 Posthumanist feminist scholars contribute to the most recent discussion on feminist ethics by looking at human relationships with the nonhuman world (Haraway 2004). Posthumanist theories are grounded in the argument that our lives are intertwined also with nonhuman objects, for example, those of machines, plants, and animals. One such approach is referred to as “agential realism” developed as a metaphysical framework by materialist scholar Barad (2007) (referenced in Mauthner 2018). “Agential realism” is described as a contrast with both naturalistic and social constructivist approaches “in that it does not commit itself to the ontological existence of material and/or cultural entities” (Mauthner 2018, p. 52). Rather than representing identities as in traditional research approaches, “agential realism” performs how we conceptualize research practices which include both human and nonhuman identities. Ethics is considered a practice (and not a researcher) accounting for “its own material existence and its material effects in helping to constitute the world” (p. 53). Ultrasound technology is one example of ethical concern for posthumanist researchers, as ontological assumptions of its innocence can have potentially moral consequences by constituting the fetus as an autonomous subject. “A posthumanist ethical practice of ultrasound technology is a practice that accounts for its own non-innocence and for its non-innocent ontological effects in the world” (Mauthner 2018, pp. 53–54). Having outlined the evolvement of feminist theories on research ethics, I will now turn to practical experiences of conducting feminist research. The remainder of the chapter will discuss a selected number of case studies where feminist researchers have encountered challenges adhering to feminist principles of reflexivity, reciprocity, and empowerment. Themes include interviewing women who have experienced intimate violence, attempts to empowering women in Bangladesh, different approaches to research with refugees in the USA, feminist ethics and critical pedagogy in a community-based research module in California, conflicts in research partnerships in Canada, and feminist research projects in the field of disabilities. Practicing Feminist Research Ethics: Case Studies Empowering Women Who Have Experienced Partner Abuse American author Burgess-Proctor (2015) reflects on the ethical challenges involved in conducting feminist interviews with women who have experienced intimate partner abuse. Outlining several guiding principles of feminist research methodology, she offers recommendations on how to empower participants rather than simply protect them in accordance with the rules of university Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Burgess-Proctor emphasizes the common themes in feminist methodologies while at the same time acknowledging the heterogeneity in feminist research. These themes include focusing on the lived experiences of women and girls, empowering research participants, encouraging reflexivity, embracing an ethic of care, and practicing reciprocity. She also cautions that simply applying these concepts in 538 A. K. Kingston research does not solve all ethical dilemmas and that there is an ongoing feminist debate on whether an egalitarian relationship between researchers and participants is achievable (referring to Nazneen et al. 2014). More importantly, raising participants’ expectations that the research will change their lives for the better can have the opposite effect and disempower rather than empower the participants (referring to Gillies and Alldred 2012). Burgess-Proctor goes on to illustrate the dilemmas facing feminist researchers by using examples from her research with teenage women who have been in intimate violent relationships. During the interviews, she found herself having to constantly “contemplate and consider the tensions between protecting and empowering participants, and to evaluate how best to allow the women to navigate and take charge of the interview process, even when their decisions raised ethical questions for me.” (p. 128). One participant is clearly traumatized by telling her story but insists on continuing the interview. Burgess-Proctor reflects on whether her repeatedly offering to stop was in fact violating the young woman’s agency “denying her the ability to give voice to her experiences?” She goes on to say: “using researcher reflexivity, I later considered whether I was merely importing protectionist biases into this interview” (p. 129). However, she was reassured that she had done the right thing by continuing as the young woman seemed more at ease after the interview and even gave her a hug. Applying a feminist ethics of care, Burgess-Proctor also ensured that there was follow-up support in the shelter afterward should the woman need it. Another participant, who had recently begun to see her ex-partner who had seriously assaulted her, found herself, during the interview, realizing the risks of continuing that relationship. This in turn made her express a wish not to accept the renumeration promised for participating in the research as a form of gratitude toward the researcher. However, waiting until the end of the interview, when the participant was less emotional, Burgess-Proctor encouraged her to take the money. This event during the interview, according to Burgess-Proctor, reflects other feminist research demonstrating that financial remuneration – valuable though it may be – is not the only “compensation” participants may derive from being interviewed (Burgess-Proctor 2015 referring to Logan et al. 2008). Burgess-Proctor uses the examples of these interviews to demonstrate that researchers encounter “ethically important moments” during difficult and emotional interviews and that it is possible to turn these interviews into a positive experience for the participant if handled with respect, care, and compassion. She goes on to offer several strategies underpinned by feminist methodologies to help researchers empower participants and not only offer protection: (1) asking participants to choose their own pseudonyms gives them some control of their participation and offers some agency; (2) life history calendars or other ways of documenting autobiographical events can assist participants to control the interview process; (3) certificates of completion can be offered to those who can use it to their benefit; (4) expressing and reciprocating emotion improves the rapport with participants; (5) concluding interviews on a positive note; and (6) share research findings with participants. She emphasizes that “given the importance 29 Feminist Research Ethics 539 participants often place on sharing their experiences in order to help other women, the need for feminist scholars to recast relationships with our participants from protection to empowerment remains great” (p. 133). Power Dynamics Documented by Pathway Researchers in Bangladesh Nazneen and et al. (2014) introduce a collection of papers by Pathways researchers (a global research consortium on women’s empowerment) who reflect on their experiences of doing feminist research in Bangladesh, Egypt, Ghana, Brazil, and Palestine. The focus is on the possibility to empower women through the selected research methods as well as analyzing the practical and ethical dilemmas they encountered. Examples of the challenges include Bangladeshi Pathway researchers who, as member of the community, felt inferior to the women organizations’ leaders who were older and more experienced activists which “created a particular power dynamic” (p. 57). Furthermore, the women’s organizations found it difficult to trust that the researchers, albeit being fellow activists, would be able to interpret/represent their history and strategies using an academic lens. A second project involved taleem women, where the Bangladeshi Pathway researchers had to cover their heads and join in religious activities in order to gain access to the groups. This made the researchers feel uncomfortable as they did not adhere to such practices in their own daily lives. Furthermore, they were unable to challenge the taleem women on their limited views of gender role because they feared losing access. This ethical dilemma, according to Nazneen and Darkwah, may “perhaps indicate the need for having realistic expectations about bridging the power relations and also the limits of erasing the differences between researchers and participants based on feminist principles of negotiation and sharing” (p. 58). Despite these challenges, the Pathways researchers’ collective reflections on their research practices demonstrated that “the process of empowerment is a journey in time that involves continuous negotiations and capturing changes at individual, institutional and structural levels and as such requires the use of a diverse set of methods” (p. 59). From Individual to Team Research: Dealing with Intimate Involvement Dilemma American sociologist Kimberley Huisman (2008) reflects on her endeavor to apply an ethics of reciprocity and positionality in feminist ethnographic research. She outlines the many ethical dilemmas encountered in her doctoral dissertation involving Bosnian Muslim refugees concurring with Stacey (1988) who queried if “interpersonal, engaged nature of ethnographic work can lead to even more exploitation than traditional positivist methods, a method by which the researcher is more detached and objective throughout the research process” (Huisman 2008, p. 372). Committed to feminist principles of reciprocity and empowerment, the author became intimately 540 A. K. Kingston involved with participants who came to see her as a “family member” (p. 391). Huisman experienced tensions within herself, and in her relationship with academia and the community throughout the research process. This was provoked by the fact that the research was likely to enhance her chances of an academic career, but the outcome for the participants was less certain: “As much as I wanted the relationship to be mutually beneficial, it was not. . .while I was striving to eliminate hierarchies in the field, I could not escape the reality that I was structurally positioned within a hierarchical institution and one of the motivations for doing this research was to advance my position within the academic hierarchy” (pp. 380–381). Once the project was completed, she would leave the community behind. Furthermore, she argues that her academic institution was largely unsupported, and while she had ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to conduct the fieldwork, she argues that “the IRB seemed far more interested in protecting the university from lawsuits than providing any guidance about ethics in research” (p. 383). Huisman brought the lessons learnt from her PhD experience to her next project, a participatory action community-based research (PAR) with Somali refugees in New England. In order to strengthen and broaden the project and address the challenges of becoming too intimate with participants, Huisman formed a team of researchers from different disciplines. The components of the project involved creating a “library of real stories” through collecting narratives as well as developing and performing a theatre script about Somali women’s experiences. Community advocacy is the third part of the project where members draw on the knowledge gained to address the specific needs in the community (p. 393). Huisman concludes that PAR as a research process “truly espouses the feminist principles of equality, democracy, reciprocity, and social change that I had strived for in my earlier work” (p. 394). The tension she experienced doing her dissertation forced her to critical self-reflection and motivated her to stay true to her feminist values as a researcher in her second project. At the time of writing the paper, Huisman and her team had been involved in this project for 3 years, and she had avoided many of the ethical dilemmas concerning intimacy with participants which she had experienced as an individual researcher. Feminist Ethics and Critical Pedagogy in Student-Community Research Collaboration An example of feminist ethics in collaborative research is discussed by Ganote and Longo (2015) who involved students at their Californian university. The authors discuss the challenges involved in practically applying feminist ethics and critical pedagogy in a collaborative community-based research model. The benefits for students and communities in successful research collaborations, they argue, are well acknowledged. However, they query the quality of this work in practice: “So, even when we know the value of successful university-community collaboration, why is it so hard to actually do this work collaboratively?” (p. 1066). The authors blame the neoliberal individualistic model for this failure where focus is on the rights of autonomous individuals rather than their civic duties and responsibilities in the 29 Feminist Research Ethics 541 community. Furthermore, they argue that creating a community-based research agenda without “sustained consultation with community members” can then possibly even do harm to the community (p. 1067). Ganote and Longo propose an alternative model grounded in feminist ethics and critical pedagogy theories, where knowledge creation is “an interconnected, social process that happens within community” (p. 1071). They applied this alternative model in the creation of two linked community-based research courses designed in collaboration with the same community partner, the Women’s Economic Agenda Project (WEAP), a grassroots organization in Oakland, California. The authors criticize those faculty members who choose community partners that, according to them, operate an individualist model of social change such as homeless shelters and soup kitchens. They argue that WEAP, on the other hand, is a grassroot community organization consisting of poor women and their families with aims to challenge societal and government policies to make long-lasting improvements in the lives of their members. Students were prepared for the community-based research with course readings, discussions, journal writing, and in-class reflections. Learning goals, among others, were to teach students concepts of interdependence/relations and encourage the development of critical consciousness. This also included addressing some students’ discomfort levels with “unfamiliar situations and/or racial biases” which, according to the authors, “could have jeopardized the relations with our community partner and the entire project if biases and negative stereotypes were reaffirmed” (p. 1074). WEAP members also intensively engaged in training the students prior to the fieldwork, when teams of students and WEAP members proceeded with the data collection. Once data were collected, it was used by WEAP leaders for organizing campaigns. Imperative for the project was then a commitment to present the research result in whatever form was required by the community group. The authors emphasize the challenges involved in deviating from what they call a “mainstream positivist assumption undergirding knowledge creation” (p. 1079), where the researchers set the agenda without any involvement of the community. In their courses, the community partner was actively involved from the start, including collaboratively marking the students at the end of the course. This caused some confusion and discomfort among the students but was acknowledged by the faculty members as being part of the learning process. Overall, we aspired to create a truly collaborative community-based research course, made rich with a foundation of feminist ethics and Freirian praxis. Praxis (melding theory and practice in an iterative process) is a relational activity in which we question our actions and work with others to achieve collaborative and ethical goals. (Freire 2000 [1970]) (Ganote and Longo 2015, p. 1076) Preparing the students for the partnership is crucial, according to the authors. Community partners do not operate on semester terms only but are often extremely busy the whole year around. From their perspective, serving as co-educators of students in a community-based collaboration can be demanding of valuable resources and time “. . .we hold great responsibility for not foisting students onto 542 A. K. Kingston communities who will drain community resources at best, and do harm at worst” (Ganote and Longo 2015, p. 1081). Conflicting Interests in Participatory Action Research on Intimate Violence Participatory action research (PAR) is sometimes applied in feminist research in the belief that the very process of participation in knowledge creation can address power imbalances and underpin social changes. Canadian sociologists Langan and Morton (2009) reflect on the difficulties encountered in a community-academic research partnership on intimate violence against women. The researchers wished to apply a feminist participatory action research (FPAR) as they felt that a critical feminist theory was the most appropriate framework for such research. The stakeholder, the provincial ministry, also expressed a wish for a feminist approach during several meetings. However, as the researchers proceeded, it became evident that the ministry disapproved of their suggested methodology due to different views regarding the purpose of the participatory research. The main interest of the ministry, according to Langan and Morton, was to evaluate if an expansion of service provision to abused women should be funded. This demanded examining the performances of the service providers. In contrast, the service providers were interested in how expanded services would operate and the service users’ views on this. So, we found ourselves in a difficult position. We were committed to a participatory research process, but the question became: ‘With whom is the participatory process taking place?’ We saw the service providers as an important voice, and they were presented to us as part of the team with whom we were working, but the ministerial officials came to be clearly identified as our ‘bosses’ and their interests were different from the service providers. (p. 169) Langan and Morton reworked their proposal to facilitate the ministry, hoping that a combination of the requested quantitative method could be combined with the FPAR approach and still give the women, who had experienced intimate violence, a voice. This was an attempt to avoid the integrity of the research becoming, as they argue, “seriously compromised” and violating their research ethics (p. 171). The revisions, however, were not deemed acceptable by the ministry who subsequently canceled the research contract. The ministry’s reason for this termination, according to the authors, was not disagreement regarding research methods, but relating to the ministry’s view that it was too soon to do an evaluation as the initiative had yet to be implemented (p. 174). The authors argue that it was the ministry’s lack of understanding of the value of FPAR that led to the collapse of the research project. Different views on risks involving the women became apparent. The stakeholders did not want any qualitative research done with the women, while the researchers believed that this was the only way of gaining knowledge. Citing Parnis et al. (2005, p. 649), they concurred with the sense of feeling “unable to conduct fully the feminist qualitative research we were committed to.” Power relations, then, between 29 Feminist Research Ethics 543 the funders of the research and the sociologists undertaking the fieldwork became the ultimate obstacle for progress and that this “intensified the ethical struggles that we were already dealing with because of what we had come to recognize as the differences in our theoretical and methodological commitments” (2009, pp. 176–177). Langan and Morton recommend that theoretical and methodological issues are clarified carefully at the start of research collaborations, between all stakeholders. This include making explicit the agenda of all the parties involved, paying attention to power relations. Power Relations Dilemma in Canadian Disability Feminist Collaborative Project Feminist researchers challenge unequal power hierarchies often found in health research methodologies by moving toward a partnership approach producing mutually beneficial research projects. Gustafson and Brunger (2014) discuss the challenges encountered in a Canadian Feminist Participatory Action Research (PAR) Project involving women with disabilities and adaptive technologies. Negotiating power relations became problematic as each community defined boundaries and asserted individual/collective identities during the research process. A student undertaking the research was also a board member of the collaborating partner, a disability community group. Several conflicts emerged during the research process, relating to power relations between academia and the disability organization. Ethical requirements from the academy were perceived by the disability organization as paternalistic and oppressive. Furthermore, ownership of data became an issue of tension where the student had initiated the research and received funding for the same but at the same time wanted to adhere to the feminist values of reciprocity and longterm outcomes for the disability community. Following the principles of PAR, the group had collaborated in the production and distribution of documents based on the findings using an ISBN (International Standard Book Number). This prevented the student from using the same data in her dissertation as originally planned. The student also felt conflicted about her academic goal of keeping within time frames and her activist commitment to the community. The authors, agreeing with Manzo and Brightbill (2007), stress the impossibility of implementing ethical restrictions at the start of a research partnership: “such ethical conundrums are not easily predicted at the outset of a project” (p. 1000). A considered strength in this partnership, according to the authors, was the feminist collaborative work applied in the project: “a respect for our distinct areas of expertise, our unique subjectivities, and the ever-shifting ways we make meaning of a research experience” (p. 1001). Gustafson and Brunger emphasize the importance of using contract-style relationship agreements between supervisor and student, and student and community, beyond the researcher-community agreement. They also argue that relationship building with communities with subsequent negotiations is outside the remit of a research ethics board. 544 A. K. Kingston Mothers of Special Needs: Reflections from an “Insider” Researcher My own feminist ethnography, drawing on feminist matricentric theories (Ruddick 1989; Kittay 1999; Malacrida 2003; O’Reilly 2006), adhered to feminist principles of empowerment, reflexivity, and reciprocity as outlined in this chapter. The patriarchal construction of motherhood, in my opinion, restricts women’s agency, and mothers of children with special needs become even more marginalized within this construction. The objective with my doctoral dissertation was to make these mothers visible and to publish the research findings in a book that I felt was needed to fill a gap in literature on both feminist mothering and disability research. Several ethical dilemmas, however, occurred during the research process, in relation to aspects of empowerment and reciprocity particularly. My subjective influence on the research consisted of cultural/social locations as a Swedish journalist who now resided in Ireland, and I also brought “insider” knowledge as a mother of special needs to the research context. This knowledge proved to be advantageous during the study which included face-to-face interviews and follow-up meetings a year later, as I developed a great rapport with the 18 participants. Having spent years together with women like these, sharing the struggle for services and the perceived paternalistic treatment by professionals, I had a political and passionate commitment to make a difference in our lives. I also had the advantage of being relatively free to conduct the research according to my own feminist research agenda, as no funder/employer imposed other conditions. Despite my feminist stance, I chose not to discuss gender divisions and patriarchy with my participants. While not entirely withholding my personal convictions, I was reluctant to make them a theme in the interviews out of fear of alienating the women. I respected their cultural backgrounds, the majority of which were Catholics, and that they did not share my concern for how the social construction of motherhood imposed so many of our difficulties in the day-to-day life with our children. I encountered the first challenge when I offered the participants the verbatim transcripts from their interviews to read. This provoked reactions that I had not anticipated. Firstly, the sight of the spoken word written down disturbed many of the mothers. They reported that they felt “awful” and “embarrassed” when reading their own stories. In one case, I received a letter from a participant stating that she never realized she spoke so badly and that she now wondered if she was at all capable of helping her autistic son. It appeared that I had in fact disempowered this mother rather than empowered her by applying the reciprocal principle of sharing data. The depression in her letter worried me immensely, and I had to make a phone call to reassure her that her transcript was no different to anybody else’s and that in the context of the final version, all the narratives would be edited. Another participant returned her transcript with half of the pages deleted. Much of this data contained details regarding her son’s school and her personal struggle trying to teach him social skills. She was extremely worried to reveal any information that could have identified her or her son, but I also think that she felt uncomfortable revealing certain aspects of her mothering and in this sense used a form of self-censoring. At the follow-up meeting, a year after the initial interview, I was able to explain how 29 Feminist Research Ethics 545 valuable her full story was, which gave me permission to use some more of what she had deleted. I would argue that this negotiation empowered the mother to believe in her own agency and resist patriarchal social constructions of being a “good mother.” It was at this stage in the research process that I also asked for the participants’ written consent to use what they deemed acceptable from their transcript for my dissertation and any possible publications thereafter. All mothers were given the opportunity to choose their own pseudonyms which almost all of them wanted to do, carefully choosing names for both themselves and their children. This, I believe, gave them agency in the research partnership, rather than passively having pseudonyms assigned to them by me afterward (Burgess-Proctor 2015). The second dilemma related to the relationship dynamics with the participants. Having met them on two occasions over a period of a year, with the second meeting taking place in a restaurant, the boundaries of our research relationship were becoming a bit blurred. Tina Miller (2017) also raises this dilemma in the context of digital technologies where interactions/connections with participants often take place outside the immediate context of the interviews. Thus, friend requests on Facebook or LinkedIn invitations after the research has been completed can prolong the “friendship” and potentially pose an ethical challenge. My rapport with one or two of my participants did in fact result in a “digitally” continued friendship. However, in my analysis, I ascribe a “resilient agency” to many mothers of children with special needs, and in these cases, I did not fear that becoming too close would do harm. They had self-selected to take part in the study, they were all involved in support groups (hence they had heard about the research), and most of the participants chose not to remain in touch with me once I had finished my study. The third dilemma related to the publication of the research and the principle of empowerment and making a difference. I had chosen not to reveal my feminist standpoint at the outset of the research, which in a sense contradicts the principle of transparency in research relationships. Anticipating participants’ reactions to the book therefore caused me concerns wondering what they would think of my feminist analysis of their narratives. Perhaps I was, as a feminist researcher, overly sensitive to the ethical impact my research might have had on the participants? Tina Miller (2002, p. 66) asks this question reflecting on her research on UK women becoming mothers for the first time. Nevertheless, I found consolation in the fact that many of the mothers were delighted to receive the book, very happy with the content, and a few attended the book launch. One mother, who couldn’t attend, sent me a fridge magnet with a feminist slogan which both surprised and pleased me. I interpreted that she was indeed empowered and that she did agree with my feminist agenda, now out in the open because of the book (Kingston 2007). What happened then to my end goal with my research and my book: challenging patriarchal structures and improving lives for mothers of special needs in Ireland? I have received letters from mothers living in different continents who feel empowered by reading the stories of these Irish mothers. I have given copies to professionals and policymakers with a hope of raising awareness, but I have unfortunately not received any responses despite that the book’s foreword is written by a child/adolescent psychiatrist and international expert on autism and ADHD. 546 A. K. Kingston Hoggart (2017) discusses the feminist researcher’s position as subjectively influencing data, up to and beyond research findings. Questions regarding the importance of the research being taken seriously are then constantly being reflected upon and many times leaving the researcher disillusioned. Journalists, on the other hand, are sometimes instantly rewarded for their part in giving mothers of children with special needs in Ireland a platform for voicing their despair on live radio and TV, generating urgent extra funding for respite and this without going through any formal ethics board’s rigorous scrutiny. In December 2018, for example, Irish national television (RTE Raidió Teilifís Éireann Primetime Investigates) broadcasted “Carers in Crisis” which prompted the Minister of State for disability issues to allocate €10 million extra respite funding the following week (McGrath 2017). In sum, conducting a feminist ethnography underpinned by the principles of empowerment, reflexivity, and reciprocity is not without its own ethical challenges. As documented by other feminist researchers cited in this chapter, feminist research ethics cannot be formulated in a specific set of rules at the start of a research project. It needs to be contextualized and adapted to suit specific pieces of research during the entire research process. Conclusions and Recommendations There is an emerging discussion about the relevance of feminist research ethics among social scientists. While there is not one definition of either feminism, or feminist research methods, some common themes can nevertheless be found in current debates. The old mantra “the personal is political” is still relevant in this context, as is the aim of deconstructing patriarchal hierarchies. A constant debate regarding how to best ensure that research participants benefit from being involved in social science research is vital. Applying a feminist research ethics in research thus can entail some of the following guidelines: • Empowering research participants. This does not necessarily demand a research outcome which makes a positive difference to the participant’s life through political action and policy reforms. Raising awareness among participants throughout the research process can also be a form of empowerment. This can be achieved during fieldwork, for example, in interviews, if conducted with care and empathy. Realistic expectations of the outcome of the research must nevertheless be stated at the outset for everyone involved. • Reflexivity during the entire research process. As research is initiated, feminist researchers should raise questions such as “who is this research for?” and “who will benefit?” while considering the impact the study will have on participants. A strong reflexivity also entails a transparent acknowledgment of what the researcher brings to the project in terms of personal and social locations. • Revisiting consent forms. Consent forms cannot be restricted to follow the rigidity of institutional ethics committees/boards but may have to be adapted to contexts and revisited during the entire research process. It is important for 29 Feminist Research Ethics 547 participants to know what they are consenting to do. Consent forms should also clarify if participants have a right to influence analysis and dissemination of research findings. • Feminist Participatory Action Research useful method. Careful attention needs to be paid to potential research partners and their assessment of research needs in the community. Feminist Participatory Action Research, if successfully implemented, can be a useful methodology to empower rather than exploit community members. • Clarify relationships at the start of the research. Research projects are subjectively influenced by the researcher before, during, and after fieldwork. It is important to reflect on the balance between rapport and friendship and how the relationship with participants will be affected long term. This needs to be clarified at the outset. • Reciprocity and sharing of findings. A feminist ethic of care also applies to disseminations of research findings. Participants should be offered to comment on findings; however, careful attention needs to be paid to how these findings are presented. References Barad K (2007) Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press Burgess-Proctor A (2015) Methodological and ethical issues in feminist research with abused women: reflections on participants’ vulnerability and empowerment. Women’s Stud Int Forum 48:124–134 Deveaux M (1999) Feminism and empowerment: a critical reading of Foucault. In: Hesse-Biber S, Gilmartin C, Lydenberg R (eds) Feminist approaches to theory and methodology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 236–258 Duncombe J, Jessop J (2012) ‘Doing rapport’ and the ethics of ‘faking friendship’. In T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner, & J. Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Edwards R, Mauthner M (2002) Ethics and feminist research: theory and practice. In: Mauthner M, Birch M, Jessop J, Miller T (eds) Ethics in qualitative research. Sage, London, pp 14–28 Freire P (2000 [1970]) Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary Edition). New York: Continuum Ganote C, Longo P (2015) Education for social transformation: infusing feminist ethics and critical pedagogy into community-based research. Crit Sociol 41(7–8):1065–1085 Gilligan C (1982) In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard university press, Cambridge, MA Gilligan C (2011) Joining the resistance. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK Gillies V, Alldred P (2012) The ethics of intention: Research as a political tool. In T. Miller, M. Birch,M. Mautner, & J. Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (pp. 43–60) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Gustafson DL, Brunger F (2014) Ethics, “vulnerability,” and feminist participatory action research with a disability community. Qual Health Res 24(7):997–1005 Halse C, Honey A (2005) Unraveling ethics: illuminating the moral dilemmas of research ethics. Signs J Women Cult Soc 30(4):2141–2162 Haraway D (2004) The Haraway reader. Routledge, London Harding S (1987) Introduction: is there a feminist method? In: Harding S (ed) Feminism and methodology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington 548 A. K. Kingston Harding S (1991) Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Open University Press, Buckingham Hesse-Biber SN, Leavy PL (eds) (2007) Feminist research practice. Sage, London Hoggart L (2017) Collaboration or collusion? Involving research users in applied social research. Women’s Stud Int Forum 61:100–107 Huisman K (2008) “Does this mean you’re not going to come visit me anymore?” An inquiry into an ethics of reciprocity and positionality in feminist ethnographic research. Sociol Inq 78(3):372–396 Kelly L, Burton S, Regan L (1994) Researching women’s lives or studying women’s oppression? Reflections on what constitutes feminist research. In: Maynard M, Purvis P (eds) Researching women’s lives from feminist perspective. Taylor & Francis, Portsmouth, pp 27–48 Kingston AK (2007) Mothering special needs: a different maternal journey. Jessica Kingsley Publisher, London Kittay EF (1999) “Not my way, Sesha, your way, slowly”: “Maternal thinking” in the raising of a child with profound intellectual disabilities. In: Hanigsberg JE, Ruddick S (eds) Mother troubles. Rethinking contemporary maternal dilemmas. Beacon Press, Boston Langan D, Morton M (2009) Reflecting on community/academic ‘collaboration’: the challenge of ‘doing’ feminist participatory action research. Action Res 7(2):165–184 Leavy PL (2007) The practice of feminist oral history and focus group interviews. In: Hesse-Biber SN, Leavy PL (eds) Feminist research practice. Sage, London Logan T, Walker R, Shannon L, Cole J (2008) Combining ethical considerations with recruitment and follow-up strategies for partner violence victimization research. Violence Against Women 14(11):1226–1251 Malacrida C (2003) Cold comfort: mothers, professionals and attention deficit (hyperactivity) disorder. University of Toronto Press, Toronto Manzo LC, Brightbill N (2007) Towards a participatory ethics. In S. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods: Connecting people, participation and place (pp 33–40). New York: Routledge Mauthner N (2018) A posthumanist ethics of mattering: new materialisms and the ethical practice of inquiry. In: Iphofen R, Tolich M (eds) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research ethics. Sage, London Maynard M (1994) Methods, practice and epistemology: the debate about feminism and research. In: Maynard M, Purvis J (eds) Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective. Taylor & Francis, London McGrath F (2017) Minister of State for disability issues homepage. http://www.finianmcgrath.ie/? p=14176. Accessed 8 Oct 2018 Miller T (2017) Telling the difficult things: creating spaces for disclosure, rapport and ‘collusion’ in qualitative interviews. Women’s Stud Int Forum 61:81–86 Miller T, Bell L (2002) Consenting to what? Issues of access, gate-keeping and ‘informed’ consent. In Mauthner M, Birch M, Jessop J, Miller T (Eds.) Ethics in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Nazneen S, Darkwah A, Sultan M (2014) Researching women’s empowerment: reflections on methodology by southern feminists. Women’s Stud Int Forum 45:55–62 Noddings N (1984) Caring: a feminine approach to ethics and moral education. University of California Press, Berkeley O’Reilly A (2006) Rocking the cradle: thoughts on motherhood, feminism and the possibility of empowered mothering. Demeter Press, Toronto Oakley A (2016) Interviewing women again: power, time and the gift. Sociology 50(1):1195–1213 Opie A (1992) Qualitative research, appropriation of the ‘Other’ and empowerment. Fem Rev 40:52–69 Parnis D, DuMont J, Gombay B (2005) Cooperation or co-optation? Assessing the methodological benefits and barriers involved in conducting qualitative research through medical institutional settings. Qualitative Health Research 15(5):686–697 29 Feminist Research Ethics 549 Philip G, Bell L (2017) Thinking critically about rapport and collusion in feminist research: relationships, contexts and ethical practice. Women’s Stud Int Forum 61:71–74 Preissle J (2007) Feminist research ethics. In: Hesse-Biber S (ed) Handbook of feminist research: theory and praxis. Sage Publications, London, pp 515–532 RTE (Raidió Teilifís Éireann) Prime Time – Carers in Crisis. Broadcasted 5 Dec 2017. https://www. rte.ie/news/player/prime-time/2017/1205/. Accessed 8 Oct 2018 Ruddick S (1989) Maternal thinking: toward a politics of peace. Ballantine Books, New York Spalter-Roth R, Hartmann H (1999) Small happiness: the feminist struggle to integrate social research with social activism. In: Hesse-Biber S, Gilmartin C, Lydenberg R (eds) Feminist approaches to theory and methodology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 333–347 Stacey, Judith (1988) “Can There Be a Feminist Ethnography?” Women’s Studies International Forum 11:21–7