Feminist researchers prefer to use research methods which will give qualitiative data which enables them to reach ‘verstehen’(Weber). Feminists tend to favour particular methods such as focus groups. Focus groups consists of a relatively small number of people who are asked to discuss a specific topic Focus groups would give the feminist researcher the opportunity to hear an issue being discussed, with women being able to discuss and challenge each other’s views however they are not very representative as only a small sample is used. Wilkinson says that feminists use focus groups as there is less of an obvious power divide and they allow people to interact naturally and that they also even out power by giving a group of women the chance to take control of the discussion. Madriz further adds focus groups give marginalised women the chance to make sense of their experiences and gives them a sense of solidarity. Feminists would also prefer to use unstructured interviews where it is more like a conversation with the participant where the researcher just has a basic area for discussion and asks any questions that seem relevant.. Therefore there is no official hierarchy between the researcher and the participant and the participant can express themselves giving a truer picture. An example of the use of unstructured interviews is Oakley’s study of the ‘housewife’
Ethnographic methods are methods such as participant observation and in-depth interviews. Feminist researchers prefer to use ethnographic methods as it allows them to immerse themselves in the lives of the people under study so that they can gain an in depth understanding of the lives of women. Harding says that feminist methodology must have a ‘dual-perspective’. This means that in order to investigate female experiences, the researcher must also be female as this allows for more valid data as the female researcher can empathise and appreciate what the participant is saying. Therefore ethnographic methods also allows for the dual-perspective approach, in which the researcher and the subject are of equal status so they can provide more detailed qualitative data which will help reach verstehen. Reinharz (1992) supports the use of ethnographic methods in saying that it is the most effective way to study women as they allow the full documentation of women’s lives, especially those regarded as unimportant by males such as domestic tasks. Ethnographic methods also reinforces the researcher’s female standpoint commitment as the ethnographic methods such as in-depth interviews will allow the researcher to empathise with the female participant therefore taking their side. Ethnographic methods would be useful for studying issues that women face of family ideology in practice such as the ‘new momism’ ideology and the pressures that women face in the family. An example of the use of ethnographic methods by feminist researchers is Skeggs (1997) where she interviewed 83 women over 12 years using partipant observation and in-depth interviews. She particularly focused on providing a means for marginalised women to express themselves and claimed that the research empowered the women and gave them a voice thus the ethnographic method used helped the feminists strive for equality and giving women a voice.
However, when using feminist methodology some feminist writers have had some problems as their interpretation of women’s responses to their questions do not necessarily match with the respondents. An example Millen (1997) interviewed 32 British female scientists about heir work. However, her approach based on feminist ideas was; largely rejected by the respondents therefore it can be argued that feminist methodology gives a distorted representation of women lives thus not giving a true picture. Furthermore some sociologists disagree that feminists should have their own research methodology. Positivists criticise interpretivist-qualitative methods such as ethnographic methods as lacking in reliability and not very representativeness. The feminist qualitative methodology also has problems such as the Hawthorne effect (Mayo) and the imposition problem. In Feminist methodology the researcher has the agenda to reach feminist standpoint therefore the research can be seen as biased. Soft feminists see positivist-quantitatve methodology as salvageable. Jayarathe argues that traditional methods should be taken but changed to be as gender neutral as possible therefore there would be no need for feminist to have their own methodology if they can use the traditional methods and modify them and also the credibility attached to traditional methods can be used to further the position of women by getting more funding for research.
Oakley sees the total rejection of quantitative methods is harming feminist research. Oakley (1981) argues that traditional structured interviews where she views them as exploitative as they offer the interviewee nothing in exchange for their information and reflect power imbalance between interviewer and interviewee. However Oakley believes that in order to to get access to the prestige, funding and influence of government policy to bring about equality for women which would be very difficult to achieve using ethnographic methods. Feminists must use both quantitative and qualitative methods in their research.
In conclusion, feminists are very open about reaching the feminist standpoint to ensure equality for women and the ethnographic methods allow women to express themselves providing rich valid data. However this leaves room for criticisms by positivist sociologists who argue that feminist methodology lacks in reliability and is not representativeness. As Oakley has said if feminists want to access the same status of traditional research then they must either adapt the traditional methodology or use both quantitative and qualitative methods. Feminist methodology could use triangulation methods to strive for equality for women.
