Feminist Review

, Volume 115, Issue 1, pp 97–113 | Cite as

feminist online interviewing: engaging issues of power, resistance and reflexivity in practice

Article

abstract

This paper is a response to scholars who have called for exploring and interrogating new strategies of data collection and new approaches to more traditional methods, such as interviewing in the context of the internet. Drawing on feminist standpoint theory, ‘reflexive email interviewing’ is proposed as a method for feminist research. The method is illustrated using a recent case study of email interviews with self-identified women who are members of World Pulse, an online community that aims to unite and amplify women’s voices worldwide. Through this case study, issues of power and resistance in the researcher/researched relationship and of participant reflexivity are interrogated. Lastly, criteria for reflexive email interviewing are proposed, including 1) strategies to interrogate and disrupt power hierarchies within the research process, 2) researcher reflexivity as a continuous part of the research process, and 3) continued invitations for participants to directly reflect on and respond to the research process. Reflexive questions are offered for researchers to use during research design and in each phase of their research process to ensure reflexivity is achieved.

keywords

feminist methodology online interviewing qualitative methods power reflexivity 

references

  1. Bhavnani, K. and Talcott, M., 2012. Interconnections and configurations: toward a global feminist ethnography. In S.N. Hesse-Biber, ed. Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 135–153.Google Scholar
  2. Briggs, C.L., 1986. Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callaway, H., 1992. Ethnography and experience: gender implications in fieldwork and texts. In J. Okely and H. Callaway, eds. Anthropology and Autobiography. New York: Routledge Chapman Hall, pp. 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins, P.H., 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Daniels, J., 2009. Rethinking cyberfeminism(s): race, gender, and embodiment. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 37(1), pp. 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeVault, M.L. and Gross, G., 2012. Feminist qualitative interviewing: experience, talk, and knowledge. In S.N. Hesse-Biber ed. Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 206–236.Google Scholar
  7. Finlay, L., 2002. ‘Outing’ the researcher: the provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), pp. 531–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frost, N. and Elichaoff, F., 2014. Feminist postmodernism, poststructuralism, and critical theory. In S.N. Hesse-Biber, ed. Feminist Research Practice: A Primer. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 42–72.Google Scholar
  9. Haraway, D., 1988. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), pp. 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harding, S., 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Harding, S., 2004. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Hartsock, N., 1983. Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hesse-Biber, S.N., ed., 2014. Feminist Research Practice: A Primer. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc..Google Scholar
  14. Hesse-Biber, S.N. and Piatelli, D., 2012. The feminist practice of holistic reflexivity. In S.N. Hesse-Biber, ed. Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 557–582.Google Scholar
  15. Illingworth, N., 2001. The internet matters: exploring the use of the internet as a research tool. Sociological Research Online, 6(2). Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/6/2/illingworth.html [last accessed 8 August 2015].
  16. James, N. and Busher, H., 2006. Credibility, authenticity and voice: dilemmas in online interviewing. Qualitative Research, 6(3), pp. 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. James, N. and Busher, H., 2009. Online Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kazmer, M.M. and Xie, B., 2008. Qualitative interviewing in internet studies: playing with the media, playing with the method. Information, Communication and Society, 11(2), pp. 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Letherby, G. and Zdrodowski, D., 1995. ‘Dear Researcher’: the use of correspondence as a method within feminist qualitative research. Gender and Society, 9(5), pp. 576–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Linabary, J.R., 2013. Voicing online: catalysts and constraints for women’s empowerment. MA. Chico: Communication Studies, California State University, Chico.Google Scholar
  21. Linabary, J.R. and Hamel, S.A., 2014. Voicing online: conditions and catalysts for the emergence of women’s voices. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Western States Communication Association, 14–18 February. Anaheim.Google Scholar
  22. Mann, C. and Stewart, F., 2000. Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Researching Online. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCoyd, J. and Kerson, T.S., 2006. Conducting intensive interviews using email: a serendipitous comparative opportunity. Qualitative Social Work, 5(3), pp. 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meho, L.I., 2006. E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: a methodological discussion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), pp. 1284–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mishler, E.G., 1986. Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Naples, N.A. and Gurr, B., 2014. Feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: approaches to understanding the social world. In S.N. Hesse-Biber, ed. Feminist Research Practice: A Primer. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 14–41.Google Scholar
  27. Newsom, V. and Lengel, L.B., 2004. The culture of computing: gender online as contained empowerment. Conference paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, 27–31 May. New Orleans.Google Scholar
  28. O’Brien Hallstein, L., 2000. Where standpoint stands now: an introduction and commentary. Women’s Studies in Communication, 23(1), pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pennebaker, J.W., Colder, M. and Sharp, L.K., 1990. Accelerating the coping process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(3), pp. 528–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reay, R., 1996. Insider perspectives or stealing the words out of women’s mouths: interpretation in the research process. Feminist Review, 53, pp. 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reinharz, S., 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, D.E., 1987. Women’s perspective as a radical critique of sociology. In S. Harding, ed. Feminism and Methodology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 84–96.Google Scholar
  33. Stanley, L. and Wise, S., 1993. Breaking Out Again: Feminist Ontology and Epistemology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. van Doorn, N., 2011. Digital spaces, material traces: how matter comes to matter in online performances of gender, sexuality and embodiment. Media, Culture & Society, 33(4), pp. 531–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. White, M.I., 2003. Taking note of teen culture in Japan: dear diary, dear fieldworker. In T. Bestor, P. Steinhoff and V. Bestor, eds. Doing Fieldwork in Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, pp. 21–35.Google Scholar
  36. Wood, J.T., 1992. Gender and moral voice: moving from women’s nature to standpoint epistemology. Women’s Studies in Communication, 15(1), pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Feminist Review Collective 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brian Lamb School of CommunicationPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Communication Arts and SciencesCalifornia State UniversityChicoUSA

Personalised recommendations