Feminist Review

, Volume 115, Issue 1, pp 79–96 | Cite as

participation in practice: a case study of a collaborative project on sexual offences in South Africa

  • Lillian Artz
  • Talia Meer
  • Hayley Galgut
  • Alex Müller


In this article we critically reflect on ‘feminist research methods’ and ‘methodology’, from the perspective of a feminist research unit at a South African university, that explicitly aims to improve gender-based violence service provision and policy through evidence-based advocacy. Despite working within a complex and inequitable developing country context, where our feminist praxis is frequently pitted against seemingly intractable structural realities, it is a praxis that remains grounded in documenting the stories of vulnerable individuals and within a broader political project of working towards improving the systems that these individuals must navigate under challenging social and structural conditions. We primarily do this by working with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) providing gender-based violence services in research conceptualisation, design and implementation. This raises unique and complex questions for feminist participatory research, which we illustrate through a case study of collaborative, participatory research with NGOs to improve health and criminal justice outcomes for survivors of sexual violence. Issues include the possibility of good intentions/good research designs failing; the suitability of participatory research in sensitive service provision contexts; the degree(s) of engagement between researchers, service providers (collaborators/participants) and research participants; as well as our ethical duties to do no harm and to promote positive, progressive change through personal narratives and other forms of evidence. Given the demands of our context and these core issues, we not only argue that there are no ‘feminist methods’, but also caution against the notion of a universal ‘feminist methodology’. Whilst we may all be in agreement about the centrality of gender to our research and analysis, the fundamental aims and assumptions of mainstream (Western) feminist approaches do not hold true in all contexts, nor are they without variance in mode, ideal degrees of participation and importance to social context.


participatory research feminist methodologies gender-based violence sexual offences South Africa 



The case study project was funded by DG Murray Trust, Cape Town.


  1. Abrahams, N., 2002. Men’s Use of Violence Against Intimate Partners: A Study of Working Men in Cape Town. PhD. Cape Town: Department of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town.Google Scholar
  2. Albertyn, C., 2011. Gendered transformation in South African jurisprudence: poor women and the constitutional court. Stellenbosch Law Review, 22(3), pp. 591–613.Google Scholar
  3. Albertyn, C., Goldblatt, B., Hassim, S., Mbatha, L. and Meintjes, S., 2000. South African Case Study: Engendering the Political Agenda: The Role of the State, Women’s Organisations and the International Community. Santo Domingo: INSTRAW.Google Scholar
  4. Artz, L., 2008. An Examination of the Attrition of Domestic Violence Cases in the Criminal Justice System of Post-Apartheid South Africa. PhD. Belfast: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Queen’s University Belfast.Google Scholar
  5. Artz, L., 2010. Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Amendment Act (32 of 2007): Reforms, Risks and Revelations. Cape Town: Open Society Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Balasco, L., 2013. The transitions of transitional justice: mapping the waves from promise to practice. Journal of Human Rights, 12(2), pp. 198–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997, 2004 [1997]. Pretoria: The South African Department of Labour. Available at: [last accessed 6 April 2017].
  8. Benson, K. and Nagar, R., 2006. Collaboration as resistance? Reconsidering the processes, products, and possibilities of feminist oral history and ethnography. Gender, Place and Culture, 13(5), pp. 581–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourke, L., Butcher, S., Chisonga, N., Clarke, J., Davies, F. and Thorn, J., 2009. Fieldwork stories: negotiating positionality, power and purpose. Feminist Africa, 13, pp. 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, R. and Wasco, S.M., 2000. Feminist approaches to social science: epistemological and methodological tenets. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(6), pp. 773–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cancian, F.M., 1992. Feminist science: methodologies that challenge inequality. Gender & Society, 6(4), pp. 623–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1996, 1996. Cape Town: Government Gazette. Available at: [last accessed 6 April 2017].
  13. Civil Union Act 17 of 2006, 2006. Cape Town: Government Gazette. Available at: [last accessed 6 April 2017].
  14. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, 1996. Available at: [last accessed 26 April 2017].
  15. Cook, J.A. and Fonow, M.M., 1986. Knowledge and women’s interests: issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. Sociological Inquiry, 56(1), pp. 2–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007, 2015 [2007]. Cape Town: Government Gazette. Available at: [last accessed 6 April 2017].
  17. Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, 2014 [1977]. Pretoria: Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd. Available at: [last accessed 6 April 2017].
  18. Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, 1998. National Policy Guidelines for Victims of Sexual Offences, 1998. Pretoria: Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.Google Scholar
  19. Department of Social Development, 2003. Policy Framework and Strategy for Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence in South Africa. Pretoria: Department of Social Development.Google Scholar
  20. DeVault, M.L., 1996. Talking back to sociology: distinctive contributions of feminist methodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, pp. 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998, 1999. Cape Town: Government Gazette. Available at: [last accessed 6 April 2017].
  22. Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, 1998. Cape Town: Government Gazette. Available at: [last accessed 6 April 2017].
  23. England, K.V.L., 1994. Getting personal: reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. Professional Geographer, 46(1), pp. 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Enslin, E., 1994. Beyond writing: feminist practice and the limitations of ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 9(4), pp. 537–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Feminist Alternatives, 2011. My Dream is to be Bold: Our Work to End Patriarchy. Cape Town: Pambazuka Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fonow, M.M., and Cook, J.A., 2005. Feminist methodology: new applications in the academy and public policy. Signs, 30(4), pp. 2211–2236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Galgut, H. and Artz, L., 2016. “If You Don’t Stand Up and Demand Then They Will Not Listen”: The Implementation of South African Sexual Offences Legislation and Community Justice. Cape Town: University of Cape Town.Google Scholar
  28. Gorelick, S., 1991. Contradictions of feminist methodology. Gender & Society, 5(4), pp. 459–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gouws, A., 2005. (Un)Thinking Citizenship: Feminist Debates in Contemporary South Africa. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  30. Gouws, A., 2014. Recognition and redistribution: state of the women’s movement in South Africa 20 years after democratic transition. Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity, 28(2), pp. 19–32.Google Scholar
  31. Harding, S.G., 1987. Introduction: is there a feminist method? In S. Harding, ed. Feminism and Methodology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
  32. Hill Collins, P., 1986. Learning from the outsider within: the sociological significance of black feminist thought. Social Problems, 33(6), pp. 514–530.Google Scholar
  33. Holland, S., Renold, E., Ross, N.J. and Hillman, A., 2010. Power, agency and participatory agendas: a critical exploration of young people’s engagement in participative qualitative research. Childhood, 17(3), pp. 360–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jewkes, R. and Abrahams, N., 2002. The epidemiology of rape and sexual coercion in South Africa: an overview. Social Science and Medicine, 55(7), pp. 1231–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jewkes, R., Levin, J. and Penn-Kekana, L., 2001. Domestic Violence in South Africa. Pretoria: Women’s Health Research Unit, Medical Research Council.Google Scholar
  36. Kauffman, L.S., 1993. American Feminist Thought at Century’s End: A Reader. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Keller, E.F., 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kim, M., 1997. Poor women survey poor women: feminist perspectives in survey research. Feminist Economics, 3(2), pp. 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, 1995. Pretoria: The South African Department of Labour. Available at: [last accessed 6 April 2017].
  40. Lewis, D., 2001. Introduction: African feminisms. Agenda, 50, pp. 4–10.Google Scholar
  41. Maintenance Act 99 of 1998, 1998. Cape Town: Government Gazette. Available at: [last accessed 6 April 2017].
  42. Mies, M., 1983. Towards a methodology for feminist research. In G. Bowles and R. Duelli Klein, eds. Theories of Women Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Morrell, R., 1998. Of boys and men: masculinity and gender in Southern Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies, 24(4), pp. 605–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mosavel, M., Simon, C., Van Stade, D. and Buchbinder, M., 2005. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) in South Africa: engaging multiple constituents to shape the research question. Social Science and Medicine, 61(12), pp. 2577–2587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Murray, C. and O’Sullivan, M., eds., 2005. Advancing Women’s Rights. Pretoria: Juta and Company Ltd.Google Scholar
  46. Nagar, R. and Raju, S., 2003. Women, NGOs and the contradictions of empowerment and disempowerment: a conversation. Antipode, 35(1), pp. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nama, N. and Swartz, L., 2002. Ethical and social dilemmas in community-based controlled trials in situations of poverty: a view from a South African project. Journal of Community and Applied Psychology, 12(4), pp. 286–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nath, D. and Mthathi, S., 2011. “We’ll Show You You’re a Woman”: Violence and Discrimination Against Black Lesbians and Transgender Men in South Africa. New York: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
  49. Pain, R. and Francis, P., 2003. Reflections on participatory research. Area, 35(1), pp. 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000, 2000. Cape Town: Government Gazette. Available at: [last accessed 6 April 2017].
  51. Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995, 2005 [1995]. Pretoria: Juta and Company, Ltd. Available at: [last accessed 26 April 2017].
  52. Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998, 2003 [1998]. Cape Town: Government Gazette. Available at: [last accessed 6 April 2017].
  53. Reinharz, S. and Davidman, L., 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc..Google Scholar
  54. Salo, E. and Mama, A., 2001. Talking about feminism in Africa. Agenda, 50, pp. 58–63.Google Scholar
  55. Shah, S.P., 2014. Street Corner Secrets: Sex, Work, and Migration in the City of Mumbai. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sprague, J. and Zimmerman, M.K., 1989. Quality and quantity: reconstructing feminist methodology. The American Sociologist, 20(1), pp. 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Statistics South Africa, 2012. Poverty Profile of South Africa: Application of the Poverty Lines on the LCS 2008/2009. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.Google Scholar
  58. Statistics South Africa, 2015. Mid-Year Population Estimates 2015. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. Available at: [last accessed 22 June 2016].
  59. Wood, K. and Jewkes, R., 2006. Blood blockages and scolding nurses: barriers to adolescent contraceptive use in South Africa. Reproductive Health Matters, 14(27), pp. 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Feminist Review Collective 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lillian Artz
    • 1
  • Talia Meer
    • 1
  • Hayley Galgut
    • 1
  • Alex Müller
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Health Sciences, Gender Health and Justice Research UnitUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations