Further challenges to feminist methods may be divided into two key areas, the first of which is the tension between dominant empirical approaches to research and research inclusive of women’s experiences (Lather, 2001). Although theories of power are myriad among feminists, surrounding the shared goal of gaining understanding is the principle that knowledge produced by feminist research should in some way be connected to women’s actual experiences of power within relationships – including those between the researcher and the researched (Naples, 2000). If we accept a definition of experience that embraces the multiplicity of activities involved in women’s everyday lives (Brooks, 2007), it is understandable that experience as a valid source of knowledge has been criticized for a disconnection from theory, for lack of generalizability, and for the simple reason that the human senses are not infallible (Ramazanoglu and Holland, 2002). Nevertheless, feminist knowledge produced using experience as its basis has resonated strongly with many people, suggesting that the examining of experience within a rigorous sociological framework has the potential to produce findings that are both accessible and academic (Smart, 2009).
Secondly, incorporation of the poststructural concept of intersectionality (‘the relationships among multiple dimensions and modalities of social relations and subject formations’) presents quite a challenge to feminist researchers (McCall, 2005, p. 1771). This is particularly the case when varied ways of thinking (for example Eastern and Western) meet (Ramazanoglu and Holland, 2002). Feminist scholars have come to recognize that multiple positions on any given issue must be recognized – even when they are in disagreement with feminist thought (Pini, 2004b). However, this has also led to the assertion that discourse alone cannot capture the effects of experience on women’s actual, physical realities, and therefore experience must be interpreted in some manner, rather than being merely investigated (Smart, 2009). This point brings us to the specific methods used in this study.
2.2 Research Design
Pini (2004b) argues that researchers interested in studying rural women are at a point in time that calls for a methodology which will, much like Sachs’ (1983) work in The Invisible Farmers, make visible these women’s hidden contributions. In light of this call, Shortall’s (2002) view of the exploration of the farm household as key to research exploring gender roles and farm families’ divisions of labour also seems appropriate to the broader rural community. This is not simply because farm women are an important segment of the rural population, but also because examining household gender roles is fundamental to the study of rural women in leadership. Furthermore, in spite of similarities in stereotypes of rural women, their experiences are actually quite varied (Little, 2002). Additionally, as Pini (2003a) points out, addressing issues from a localized perspective strengthens the feminist narrative by giving voice to ‘women [who] have been marginalized and excluded by an all encompassing discourse of feminism’ (p. 422). For this study, the household explored was chiefly the woman’s childhood home (family of origin).
2.2.1 Aims and objectives
As set forth earlier, the aim of this research was to uncover factors that facilitated the acquisition and development of leadership skills among current women leaders from rural areas of Northern Ireland. Using qualitative methods rooted in feminist theories, this study sought to identify commonalities among women who are currently serving in elected or appointed positions of leadership. Wilkinson and Blackmore (2008) have noted that the majority of studies on women in leadership are institution focused – positioning women’s development within the context of a particular organization. Rather than focusing on a single institution or contextualizing the participants’ development solely in terms of a particular organization, this body of work attempted to address the women’s leadership development as a social process rooted in their identity as ‘rural’.6
2.2.2 Site
The first facet of research to be established was that of site. Because the focus was specifically on women leaders from rural areas of Northern Ireland, the rural women’s sector in the region seemed a natural beginning point. Further interviews were conducted with women in other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), politics, business, churches and faith-based organizations, and agricultural organizations – types of organizations included in Macaulay and Laverty’s list of rural women’s groups and organizations in Northern Ireland in their 2007 ‘Baseline Study of Rural Women’s Infrastructure in Northern Ireland’. Interviews with women serving in similar organizations outside the women’s sector, were also included.7
2.2.3 Data gathering
In order to access a broad spectrum of women leaders’ experiences, and to add validity to the study, two methods of qualitative data gathering were employed: in-depth interviews and participant observation. Simultaneously, reflexivity was utilized throughout the study as a tool for data gathering and also for maintaining awareness of any ethical dilemmas that might materialize (Buch and Staller, 2007). The use of semi-structured interviews following an interview schedule loosely contoured to the chronology of participants’ life stories brought forward the types of experiences and thought processes participants considered valuable to their leadership journey. The study undertook an inquiry into rural women leaders’ personal and community identities, family and community relationships, leadership role models and mentors, education, religion and leadership experiences within organizations. These facets of the women’s lives provided starting points designed to spark discussion about their personal experiences of formative situations in which gender roles are often prescribed and traditional. From this perspective, these areas of inquiry also opened avenues of exploration into the complexities that surround women and leadership – particularly rural women in leadership (Rosenberg and Howard, 2008).8
In-depth interviews
Having established that the most appropriate form of interviewing for any qualitative study is dependent upon the research question, the methodology employed by Pini (2005) in her research into Australian rural women in leadership set a valuable precedent for this research. The use of general themes and questions as a framework for semi-structured interviews allowed Pini’s participants to give self-reflexive answers about their own experiences as well as advice for aspiring women leaders. This study followed her example through the use of semi-structured, in-depth individual interviews – facilitating a more comprehensive understanding of the respondents’ contexts and experiences in regard to the particular topic of leadership (Hesse-Biber, 2007).
The interview is a method that allows the researcher to maintain respondents’ comments as valid and their experiences as valuable (Brewer, 2000), and helps steer the researcher away from forms of knowledge production that have come to be seen as patriarchal (Little, 2002). As such, interviews produced a wealth of rich data in the participant’s own words (Brewer, 2000) and thus opened spaces that had the potential to reveal ‘feelings, values and internal struggles’ behind the stories told in the interview process (Ni Laoire, in Hughes et al., 2000, p. 87). Reinharz and Chase (2002) recognize the hearing of women’s own words as an antidote to centuries of their masking behind men’s words, and put this method forward as particularly important when studying women. In view of the power struggles present in the experiences of women in leadership, this perspective was notably relevant to the research. Each woman was interviewed in depth once. The use of an interview guide helped ensure that the topic at hand was addressed, while also leaving room for the interviewee to articulate related issues or experiences that she considered significant