Seeking to address these issues locally are six major Rural Women’s Networks (Fermanagh, Mid-Ulster, Omagh, Newry and Mourne, Roe Valley, and South Armagh) and one umbrella organization (Northern Ireland Rural Women’s Network, or NIRWN). These groups are led by women and are for women (Crawley, 2005). They are often supported by, and work in conjunction with, the Women’s Resource and Development Agency (WRDA) and Rural Community Network (RCN). In response to the above-mentioned issues, these groups and networks have, for many years, attempted to provide accessible childcare and training, but have continually met with difficulties in obtaining long-term funding and finding appropriate facilities and trained staff (Shortall, 2003). This can, in part, be attributed to a shuffling of responsibility for these organizations between the women’s sector and the rural development sector, resulting in a lack of funding from both (Crawley, 2005). Thus, they have also experienced a change in focus from general development to specific projects (Rural Women’s Networks, Northern Ireland Rural Women’s Network, 2007). With the 2006 formation of NIRWN by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD – a government agency), an attempt has been made to fit the previously existing networks under an umbrella organization as a means of coordinating their efforts. While this effort has met with mixed reviews (including questions regarding the motives for NIRWN’s inception), rural women’s networks continue to remain an active and essential part of rural life in Northern Ireland.
The six Rural Women’s Networks and NIRWN responded to the European Union Programme for Peace and Reconciliation (Peace III) 2007–2013 plan by calling for a focus on building equality between women and men in three areas related to leadership, the facilitation of which should include provision for appropriate childcare and transportation assistance: participation in political and decision-making bodies, skills development, and giving women confidence to speak out regarding their political opinions (Rural Women’s Networks, Northern Ireland Rural Women’s Network, 2007). Similarly, DARD’s 2007–2013 rural strategy promotes the building of leadership skills as ‘a central pillar in the regeneration of rural areas’ (Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2006).
Summary: Intersection of this Study with Broader Literature and Research
In a 2005 article on the relevance of rural sociology, Beaulieu listed leadership development as one of the areas of inquiry that should be addressed in order to assure that rural sociology remains relevant to the fluctuating social make-up of the rural community. This provides an intersection for this research and the broader research on women in leadership and organizations. While there are authors who have ventured into the world of women in leadership, only a very few (see especially Alston, 2003; Pini, 2003b, 2004a, 2005) have concentrated their writings on rural women. This is particularly true in rural Northern Ireland (Crawley, 2005). There is a markedly noticeable gap in the literature regarding factors that positively influence rural women’s leadership development. It is possible that this is the result of a conceptualizing of the rural community as a place where change may take place, but is not created (Bell et al., 2010). This work seeks to bring feminist sociology out of what Rosenberg and Howard (2008) have termed ‘ghettoized spaces’ (i.e. areas of sociological inquiry saturated by feminist work, to the exclusion of other areas) both by its identification of positive factors (in the form of people, events, organizations, thought processes and choices) that have helped to foster and promote women’s development of leadership skills and attainment of leadership roles; and through its focus on rural women in leadership.
2
Introducing the Methodology and Participants
Introduction
Because the methodology utilized in this study – particularly in the analysis of data – contributed in a unique way to the development of the study’s results, the purpose of this chapter is to familiarize the reader with the methods used. A brief discussion of the rationale for choosing a feminist approach to the study is presented first. The research design, aims and objectives then precede individual sections on the data-gathering methods and the use of reflexivity. The method of analysis used to examine the data is addressed in detail, followed by profiles of the study’s participants.
2.1 Feminism and Methodology
2.1.1 Why feminism?
Choice of method entails powerful, unavoidable consequences as related to the production of knowledge (Walby, 2001). Since – to many researchers – social science research is a social interaction which cannot be separated from its context (Lal, 1996), questions of knowledge production have been connected to calls for methodological choices to be made with a keen awareness of the study’s social, political and historical setting (Stack, 1996). The challenges of these settings represent issues being faced by the entire social research community (Ramazanoglu and Holland, 2002). However, Letherby (2004) goes so far as to centralize within feminist research the choice of appropriate method in combination with implications of power relations between researcher and participant.
Bochner (2001, p. 135) asserts that, with regard to ‘realms of lived experience’ housing the production of knowledge, academia is merely one among many. One of the key ways feminism addresses power relations in knowledge production is through the recognition of women’s experiences as a ‘legitimate form and source of knowledge’ (Pini, 2003a). This opens an avenue for exploring not only the individual women’s lives, but other lives that may also inform the individual’s experience. Thus, honouring the value of individual life experiences may allow the researcher to extrapolate insights to the larger social milieu and provide a means of working towards social change (Rosenberg and Howard, 2008). Because women’s life experiences formed the foundation of this study, a feminist viewpoint seemed the logical choice in methodology.
2.1.2 What defines ‘feminist methodology’?
The very term ‘feminist methodology’ is a contested one. In Pini’s (2003a) article on feminist methodology and rural research, she recognized this, and attempted to reconcile her need for a methodological framework with the nebulous nature of a definition for ‘feminist methodology’. In so doing, she puts forth five criteria that she adopted as her principles for conducting feminist research: ‘… a focus on gender, value given to women’s experiences and knowledge, rejection of the separation between subject and object, an emphasis on consciousness-raising and an emphasis on political change’ (p. 419). Pini’s writing is thus representative of feminist concerns throughout sociology and many other disciplines, as each of these concepts continues to be in flux and the subject of academic debate (see, for example, McCall, 2005; Rosenberg and Howard, 2008), and so serves as a point of contact between my research with rural women and the broader spectrum of feminist research.
2.1.3 Challenges to feminist methodology
Choice of methodology provides no certain guarantee that the knowledge produced is directly connected to the reality being studied (Scheurich, 1995). Feminism is no exception to this quandary, which is compounded by the presence of myriad viewpoints on what does or does not constitute appropriate feminist method (Flax, 1987). Fortunately, this situation is not hopelessly irreconcilable, as the potential still exists for feminism to negotiate commonalities in the interactions between epistemology and politics in research (Walby, 2001). The basis for negotiation lies in feminist researchers’ shared goal of gaining ‘an understanding of women’s lives and those of other oppressed groups… that promotes