Action Research
http://arj.sagepub.com
The `f' word has everything to do with it: How feminist theories inform
action research
Wendy Frisby, Patricia Maguire and Colleen Reid
Action Research 2009; 7; 13
DOI: 10.1177/1476750308099595
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://arj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/1/13
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Action Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://arj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://arj.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://arj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/7/1/13
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
Action Research
Volume 7(1): 13–29
Copyright© 2009 SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC
www.sagepublications.com
DOI: 10.1177/1476750308099595
The ‘f’ word has everything to
ARTICLE
do with it
How feminist theories inform action research
Wendy Frisby
University of British Columbia, Canada
Patricia Maguire
Western New Mexico University, USA
Colleen Reid
Simon Fraser University, Canada
ABSTRACT
KEY WORDS
•
community-based
health research
•
feminist participa-
tory action research
•
feminist theories
•
gender inequality
•
intersectionality
•
teacher action
This article considers how feminist theories have and can contribute to action research, while acknowledging some of the
tensions that arise when applying and building feminist theories.
While feminist theorizing undoubtedly occurs in some action
research, whether it is named or not, the gap appears to be in
linking local knowledge to existing theoretical frameworks.
Feminist theories, even though they are always partial and contested, have acted as an intentional counter to dominant theories about human experiences and strategies for change. They
prompt people to ask new questions and to see power dynamics
and relationships that may otherwise be missed or misread. As a
result, they have an important role to play in any action research
with transformative intentions.
research
13
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
14 • Action Research 7(1)
Introduction
Action research aims to bring together theory, method, and practice as people
work collaboratively towards practical outcomes and new forms of understanding. At its core, action research is about challenging and unsettling entrenched
and sometimes invisible power arrangements and mechanisms that are enacted in
everyday relationships, organizational and economic structures, cultural and
institutional practices, large and small (Reason & Bradbury, 2008). Feminist
theories share the social change goals of action research by focusing specifically
on power manifestations resulting in gender inequalities that have serious consequences for people’s lives, yet are often taken for granted and seen as ‘normal or
natural’ (Maguire, 1987, 2001). As Hearn (2004, p. 51) explains:
While power functions, flows and re-forms in multiple ways, it is difficult to avoid
the fact that in most societies . . . men are structurally and interpersonally dominant
in most spheres of life.
The United Nations provided a stark illustration of this when it estimated that
women do two-thirds of the world’s work, receive 10 percent of the world’s
income, and own one percent of the world’s property (Lorber, 2005). The patterns of domination and subordination that reflect gender inequalities (that are
always mediated by other markers of difference such as race, class, sexuality, and
nationality) affect every woman, man and child in multiple ways on a daily basis.
As a result, feminist theories,1 which have exploded in recent years to illuminate
the silences, complexities and transformative changes needed to tackle gender
inequalities, have much to offer in terms of how action research is conceptualized
and practised.
Over the last three decades, there has been a rise in action research explicitly identified as being feminist that is grappling with articulating how feminisms’
focus on gender as it intersects with other axes of oppression is fundamental for
engaging in action research that is representative, meaningful, and liberatory
(Reid & Frisby, 2007). Feminist action research has made significant strides and
contributions, especially in terms of encouraging different subaltern voices to be
heard and acted upon through participatory methodologies (e.g. Brydon-Miller,
Maguire & McIntyre, 2004; McIntyre & Lykes, 2004; Wang, Burris, & Ping,
1996). The action orientation is particularly important in offsetting claims that
some feminist theories have become so esoteric, jargonistic and elitist
(Hemmings, 2007), that they are no longer relevant and may even be harmful if
applied in colonizing and patronizing ways (McEwan, 2001; Williams & Lykes,
2003).
Yet it is not always clear how or which specific feminist theories ground
action research projects, even those labelled as feminist. Weiner (2004) argues
that although feminist action research is concerned with issues that matter to
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
Frisby et al.
How feminist theories inform action research • 15
women, valuing women’s lived realities and taking political action, it has been
slow to take recent advances in feminist theory into account. Maguire (2001)
adds that action research should be equally concerned about how gender shapes
men’s lives since men, women, and those who do not identify with either
male/female category, are gendered beings. That is, gender expectations, socializations and how gender is performed also impact men and boys, and a transformative approach would help them see how gender influences their actions and
those around them. To take this into account would require integrating gender
theorizing into action research, a process described by Davis (2008, p. 77) as
‘pointing out the incongruities in a theory as the first step toward looking for
ways to improve it’. It is the willingness to continually engage in theorizing and
critique that has led to the rapid advancement in feminist theories. While feminist
theorizing undoubtedly occurs in action research whether it is named or not, the
gap appears to be in linking local knowledge to existing theoretical frameworks.
The goal of this article is to begin to consider what the advantages and tensions
of doing so might be.
To open up a further dialogue around the role of feminist theories in action
research, we explore two overarching questions: 1) how can advances in feminist
theories contribute, and 2) what tensions arise when applying and building feminist theories? We first provide a brief overview of major feminist theoretical
developments that have and could inform action research. We then describe two
challenges we have experienced to highlight both the benefits of applying feminist
theories, while providing examples of the productive tensions this can create. We
end by considering ‘where do we go from here’, as this topic raises many more
questions than it addresses. Our discussion is designed to encourage ourselves
and others engaged in action research to think more explicitly about the theorybuilding and application potential of their work and how drawing on feminist
theories can feed back into improved practices and action taking for social
change.
How can advances in feminist theories contribute to action
research?
All humans, from pre-literate to academics, are theory-builders because we are
pattern-seeking, connection-building, and meaning-creating beings. Theories are
essential to individual and collective well-being and survival because they enable
us to create frameworks for making sense of the physical, spiritual, and social
worlds and for envisioning meaningful actions for social change. Suspicious of
the neutrality and objectivity claims of traditional social science research, both
feminists and action researchers examine the ways our identities and experiences,
as situated in specific contexts, shape our theories or explanations about what is
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
16 • Action Research 7(1)
going on (Reid & Frisby, 2007). Noffke (1998) asks of all theory: whose theory
is it? How is it constructed and reconstructed? She reminds us that theories are
always grounded and bounded in contradictory ways in the experiences of the
theory makers. Spivak (1990) takes this further when she recommends that
theory makers must at times ‘unlearn’ their privileges, so their own social positions will not prevent them from gaining certain knowledges.
Human experience is the basis of theory-building designed to provide
explanations for various aspects of social life (Davis, 2008). Yet as Haraway
(1988) argues, theory-builders always have partial views because of their own
situated experiences and knowledges that if left unexamined result in some
explanations being privileged, while others are marginalized or excluded. This
has happened in action research when the theories used to name, explain, and
make sense of community problems ignore and marginalize the local gender order
and women’s diverse experiences (Guijt & Shah, 1998). This has also occurred
when feminist action researchers have repeatedly discovered that they have overlooked or misunderstood the experiences of some women, men or children, and
that they themselves have been overlooked or misunderstood by other schools of
action research and feminist thought (Brydon-Miller et al., 2004).
Feminist theories, even though they are always partial and contested, have
acted as an intentional counter to dominant theories about human experiences
and strategies for change. Dorothy Smith, a feminist sociologist, is credited with
saying that ‘theory is a tool to think with’. What people think impacts how they
act, even if what people think is not always obvious or initially clear to them
(Nealon & Giroux, 2003). Theories then do something, because they offer competing explanations about how things work and how and why people interact as
they do. Theories prompt people to ask new questions and to see power dynamics
and relationships we might otherwise miss or misread. Nealon and Giroux (2003)
contend that the number one theory rule is that everything is suspect because
nothing should be accepted at face value. As a result, we use theories to help us
see and critique the otherwise invisible and taken-for-granted.
The danger of not drawing on existing feminist theories in action research in
deductive ways2 is that some of the sources and consequences of gender inequalities may be overlooked, misunderstood, or difficult to name because of entrenched
power hierarchies within a community. Feminist theories can be used as tools to
question how gender inequalities are built into all aspects of life including, for
example, the organization of marriage and families, work and the economy, education, law, government policies, religion, recreation, culture, literature, medicine,
science and forces of globalization (Lorber, 2005). Their theories and research
illustrate how such inequalities can lead to dire consequences for many women
and some men, such as having inadequate education, incomes, and health care;
being trapped in or isolated from some spheres of life; or being the victims of discrimination, violence, rape, and even death. At the same time, we must be mindful
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
Frisby et al.
How feminist theories inform action research • 17
that raising questions about gender inequalities can create hostilities from those
resisting change, so we must carefully consider if and how such tensions can be
negotiated without endangering study participants (e.g., see Yoshihama & Carr,
2002).
If new theoretical understandings arise through more inductive or groundup approaches in action research, their application may remain at the local level
if they are not linked and communicated in ways that challenge or contribute to
broader knowledge structures. Williams and Lykes’s (2003) account of Mayan
women’s experiences with domestic violence and war rape illustrate the inductive
theory-building potential of feminist participatory action research.
The strengths and limitations of feminist PAR praxis enabled us to accompany a
small group of rural Mayan women in their daily struggles and to deepen our
endeavors as academics to build an inclusive theory about war and community
rebuilding process that more adequately and accurately reflected the lived experiences of women and children. (p. 292)
It may well be that cycles of deductive and inductive feminist theorizing will contribute to the practical aims of action research in new and productive ways, while
also contributing to existing bodies of knowledge.
Feminist theories have much to offer action research as they provide intellectual tools for examining the injustices we confront, framing arguments to support demands for change, and developing place-appropriate change strategies
that take the varied and often competing experiences, power, and privileges of
stakeholders into account (McCann & Kim, 2003). Yet, developments in feminist
theories have always been contested and contentious. As Ramazanoglu and
Holland (2002) point out, there has never been one shared theory of gender
oppression, a unified vision of justice, or a common approach to the production
of knowledge. Feminisms convey the diversity within feminist approaches to
understanding the multiplicities of oppression (Hackett & Haslanger, 2006). It is
this diversity that has made it challenging to develop frameworks for action
research that work as broad guidelines rather than as concrete how-to steps
(Berge & Ve, 2000), and alternatively, for action research to clearly articulate
which feminist theories inform specific projects and how. Despite these challenges, we argue that advances in feminist theories can significantly inform action
research.
Advances in feminist theories3
Early feminists of the 19th and 20th century fought for rights to vote, to own and
inherit property, to education, and to control their bodies and reproduction;
rights that are taken for granted by some today, but are still denied to many
(Lorber, 2005). Feminist theories were tied to the feminist movement and were
critical of how traditional social and scientific theories obscured women’s experi-
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
18 • Action Research 7(1)
ences, while portraying men’s behaviours as the human norm. The phrase
‘women’s liberation movement’ eventually got shortened to ‘women’s movement’, obscuring the need to ask, liberated from what? Rather than a movement
to liberate women from the practices and values of different forms of patriarchy,4
the focus was on how women could become equal to men. While there is certainly
some value in liberal feminist arguments for equal rights and entitlements
through increased access to education, work, the political arena, and so on, early
theories were criticized on a number of levels. This led to new feminist theories to
account, in different ways, for the deficiencies and exclusions. For example, without considering how sexuality, race, class, (dis)ability, religion and other markers
of difference are linked to gender oppression, early feminist theories essentialized
women’s experiences (Davis, 2008).5 Furthermore, the impact of colonization,
imperialism and globalization were rarely incorporated into early theories, ignoring the importance of geographical, cultural, imperial and historical contexts
(McEwan, 2001). This served to reinforce hierarchies and inequalities by privileging white, Western, middle-class, heterosexual women’s perspectives on the
key issues requiring action (hooks, 1984; Mohanty, 2004).
During the 1960s and 1970s, different emerging feminist theories shared
the concern that measuring up to male-defined standards inevitably involved
women acting like or accommodating men (Young, 1990). Marxist feminist
theories drew our attention to economic structures and the material aspects of
life, while theorizing both the importance and exploitation of women’s domestic
labour (Lorber, 2005). Black feminist theorists were instrumental in criticizing
simple male/female categories that ignored the crucial role of race in oppressive
relations (hooks, 1984). Lesbian and queer feminist theorists were also showing
how hetero-normative assumptions tied to male/female binaries excluded those
with different sexualities and genders (Butler, 1994). The exploitation of
women’s bodies as a means of patriarchal control was also receiving increased
attention (Lorber, 2005). Major theoretical contributions during this time went
beyond individual attributes to focus on larger structures and practices contributing to the gendered social order (e.g. laws, governmental policies, media
representations), while calling for diverse women’s voices (or standpoints) to be
heard to reshape it (Lorber, 2005). In this way, feminist theories began to focus
much more on the differences than on the similarities between women. While the
direct influence these theoretical developments had in practice is not always clear
or easy to assess, significant changes occurred in some countries in terms of the
introduction of more equitable laws, government policies, employment practices,
services for women, and interventions for rape, battering and sexual violence.
Since the 1980s, feminist theories have further challenged Western feminist
conceptions as a form of cultural imperialism seeking to incorporate all women
into a particular set of values and categories (Mohanty, 1987, 2004). Feminist
post-colonial theories reject established ways of seeing by destabilizing discourses
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
Frisby et al.
How feminist theories inform action research • 19
that position those in the North as advanced and those in the South as backward
and primitive, thereby creating another simplistic us/them binary (McEwan,
2001). This theory shares a goal of action research in recovering oppressed voices
through the agency of non-Western people to reconstruct both history and
knowledge production (Ong, 1988). It contributes new ways of thinking about
relations among and between women and men across cultures, while raising
serious questions about the politics of speaking for and writing about others
(McEwan, 2001; Mohanty, 2004).
According to Davis (2008) and McCall (2005), another key development
was the introduction of intersectionality theory by Kimberle Crenshaw (1991),
because it addresses a central feminist concern about capturing multiple positionalities, thus avoiding exclusions of previous theories. Davis’s definition of intersectionality links individuals to larger structural arrangements and is appealing to
feminist postmodern theorists, because by conceptualizing multiple and shifting
identities, it encourages the deconstruction of essentialist positions and binary
categories.
Intersectionality refers to the interaction between gender, race and other categories
of difference in individual lives, social practices, institutional arrangements, and cultural ideologies and the outcomes of these interactions in terms of power. (Davis,
2008, p. 68)
By no longer considering gender in isolation from other identity categories,
dynamic and contradictory power dynamics became more apparent, and it was
acknowledged that white middle-class women and men may have more in common at times than women and men with other racial and socio-economic backgrounds (Lorber, 2005). This may help offset the rejection of Western feminism
by those concerned about the oppression and exclusion of poor men and children
of colour and broadens the application from ‘women only’ projects to any and all
action research, including ‘men only’ (Rooney, 1998) and ‘queer only’ projects
(McCready, 2004). While there are many challenges in considering how to incorporate intersectionality theory into action and other types of research (McCall,
2005; Yuval-Davis, 2006), Davis (2008) argues that the concept’s ambiguity and
incompleteness is precisely what prevents theoretical closure by allowing disparate groups to interpret it in sometimes incompatible ways. This encourages
action researchers to consider how multiple and shifting positionalities and
power relationships, including their own, impact all aspects of action research
(Herr & Anderson, 2005).
These theories destabilize what many think is normal, natural and moral
about gender and its intersections, and have led to new strategies for breaking
down oppressive practices (Lorber, 2005). Drawing upon different feminist theories points to material, discursive, and colonial power dynamics that reinforce
gender inequalities, while considering how multiple sources of oppression are
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
20 • Action Research 7(1)
embodied and experienced on a daily basis. It is by determining if and how these
theories account for women’s own solutions and the transformative actions that
women and men might be taking in different action research contexts around the
world, that additional complexities and exclusions requiring further theorizing
and action will be revealed.
What tensions arise when applying and building feminist
theories in action research?
While we see feminist theories as providing important lenses for understanding
how action research is conceptualized and carried out, we have encountered a
number of challenges when attempting to integrate them into our own teaching
and research. Patricia Maguire has engaged with teachers in post-secondary
teacher training programs for several years in the United States, while Wendy
Frisby and Colleen Reid have collaborated with diverse women living in poverty
in Canada on projects dealing with community-based health promotion. Two tensions we wrestle with and will elaborate upon here include: i) encountering resistance to ‘theory’ and the ‘f’ word, and ii) issues of representation (e.g., whose voices
get heard and how when building, applying, and acting upon feminist theories).
Resistance to ‘theory’ and the ‘f’ word
When initiating discussions in the classroom or in the community, we have
encountered resistance to both the terms ‘theory’ and ‘feminism’. Typical
responses to ‘theory’ have included: ‘that’s what you do in universities’, ‘theory is
not relevant in the real world’, ‘theory is just a lot of jargon’, and ‘we want action,
not more theory’. Some of the varied responses we have had in discussions about
feminists or feminism are: ‘they hate men and promote reverse discrimination’,
‘they dwell on the past and we no longer encounter those problems’, ‘feminism
does not relate to my culture’, and ‘feminism still has a role to play, but using the
term will only hinder our cause due to backlash’.
Given these varied reactions, we have questioned whether we should be
using either of these terms, but have decided that it would be unethical and inappropriate to conceal the personal and political reasons for calling ourselves
feminist participatory action researchers and practitioners.6 We label our work in
a particular way to promote discussion and to be transparent about our interest
in understanding, through participatory processes, how gender inequalities intersect with other axis of oppression and how they can be transcended.
Patricia has found that the opinions many students and teachers hold of
feminists or feminisms are often not based on any actual firsthand familiarity with
the goals, histories, or accomplishments of women’s movements nor firsthand
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
Frisby et al.
How feminist theories inform action research • 21
reading of feminist scholarship. She has discovered that the more students and
teachers read and discuss accessible articles by diverse feminists, the more open
they become to revisiting their classroom practices and specific problems with
gender in mind (Maguire et al., 2004). Some of these teachers have indicated that
it has been particularly helpful to read materials articulating the relevance of feminisms to men (see for example, hooks, 1998; Schacht & Ewing, 1998), so that all
teachers can conceptualize meaningful roles in advocating feminism in the classroom (hooks, 1998). The teacher education program and action research course
Patricia is involved in, intentionally includes materials that promote an examination of the many ways that schools and classrooms are raced, gendered, and
classed spaces, to illustrate how intersectionality impacts how students and teachers
name, frame, and experience problems. For example, without considering the
gender power dynamics at work in cooperative work groups, teachers can ‘miss’
seeing possible patterns such as which students are doing most of the talking, how
students use their leadership to include others or dominate air time, and who gets
assigned or takes on which group functions (Maguire & Berge, 2009). Without
considering possible gendered, racialized, heteronormative, and classed patterns,
teachers may attribute individual student behaviour to student personalities,
learning preferences, or normative and cultural stereotypes (McIntyre, 1997).
In other types of feminist participatory action research, it would be inappropriate to expect participants who have not had access to formal education
or who speak languages different from theoretical writings, to read feminist
scholarship. Instead, Wendy, Colleen, and community members have found it
helpful to discuss examples of how theory can both arise from and inform our
actions (Frisby, Reid, & Ponic, 2007; Reid, 2004a). For example, the diverse
women living in poverty, various community partners, and the university-based
feminist participatory action researchers created space in their projects to talk
about the social, political and economic forces that led to the women’s poor
health as a way of countering dominant victim blaming approaches and discourses tied to individual responsibility. Such theorizing points to individual and
collective steps that can be taken to counter dominant discourses that disadvantage women who have unequal access to health care and health-promoting
activities, which also serves to absolve policy-makers from taking corrective
actions (Reid, Tom, & Frisby, 2006). Without such theorizing, women may internalize oppression by blaming themselves for their situations because of the
stigmatizing treatment and messages that bombard them on a daily basis
(Pheterson, 1990; Ponic, 2007). This shifts the focus to the broader societal forces
constraining their lives that contribute to their poor health, thus examining
connections between personal behaviour, gender, other axes of oppression and
social structures. This approach is tied to Freire’s (1970) notion of conscientization and illustrates the usefulness of theories to re-examine ‘common sense’
beliefs (Thompson, 2000).
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
22 • Action Research 7(1)
While the women shared a lack of material resources, they differed in other
significant ways that were illustrative of intersectionality theory because age,
marital and immigration status were tied to different causes and consequences of
poverty, as well as desired actions identified by the women (Reid et al., 2006). For
example, young single mothers were very concerned about affordable childcare,
older women who lived alone contemplated alternative ways of reducing their
social isolation, and recent immigrant women who did not speak English as their
first language considered how to deal with the discrimination encountered when
seeking employment and public services in Canada (Frisby et al., 2007; Reid,
2004a). Many of the women on low income and male and female community
partners that Wendy and Colleen worked with came to identify with feminist
activism and theory once they had the language to put to their concerns.
In our respective work, we spend time unpacking the terms ‘theory’ and
‘feminism’, not to force a single unified position, but to entertain multiple alternative definitions that will continue to shift, be partially or fully rejected or
accepted, and ignored or acted upon in various ways over time. In this way, those
with whom we collaborate can decide how they will label and proceed with their
own work. This leads to another tension we have encountered in our feminist
informed action research and teaching: namely, how can we represent the multiple voices and different approaches to theorizing that arise?
Issues of representation (e.g. whose voices get heard and how when
building, applying, and acting upon feminist theories)
Advances in feminist research methodologies and critiques of traditional social
science approaches have expanded tools for interpretation and representation,
including, for example, the use of photovoice (McIntyre, 2000; McIntyre &
Lykes, 2004; Wang et al., 1996) and other sources of ‘evidence’, such as diaries,
journal writing, and group activities (Ponic, 2007; Reid, 2004b). An assumption
underpinning different methodologies is that there are strategies for engaging participants in reaching collective understandings. This assumption is fraught with
tensions, as feminist theories have pointed out, because of how our different
gendered, racialized and sexualized identities, cultures, and histories become
socially constructed in patterns of domination and subordination both within and
outside of action research. It is by finding ways to work across such differences
that enough common ground can be created to form a basis for both individual
and collective action.
At times, we have encountered resistance and hostility from students, teachers,
community members, and university-based researchers who feel threatened when
their dominant positions associated with whiteness, maleness, heterosexuality,
birth nation, age, ability and social class, for example, are examined. And certainly, our own positions of privilege and theoretical understandings of how the
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
Frisby et al.
How feminist theories inform action research • 23
world operates are constantly challenged doing this type of teaching and research
(Frisby, Reid, Miller, & Hoeber, 2005; Maguire & Berge, 2009; Reid, 2004a). As
an example of how to open up discussions to confront such reactions in a classroom setting, Patricia encourages teachers to be reflexive by analyzing how their
own positionalities and preferences for ‘doing gender’ may impact how they treat
students and involve them in classroom-based action research. She asks teachers
to raise questions about their practices and action research projects using feminist
concepts. For example, using gender as lens, do teachers give different consequences to boys or girls for misbehaviour or let different behaviours slide? Using
power relationships as a lens, do teachers get in different discipline struggles with
boys and girl based on what they think they should do as a male or female teacher
interacting with students?
While all humans are theory-builders, we do not all share the specialized
language and processes often associated with intentionally building and articulating feminist theories. Involving people in naming and ‘testing’ their partial
theories of how the social world works allows them to rethink theories and supposedly common sense explanations, rather than accepting theories that blame
women for their own secondary status. This is where action research contributes
back to feminist theory-building, because the goal is to engage in participatory
processes that are inclusive of those usually marginalized from more formal
processes of theory production. Traditional approaches assume that only trained
academics can engage in these activities, leading to harmful and unproductive
assumptions about the capacities and interests of others. The traditional divide
between the academy and the broader community only exacerbates power imbalances between those trained as researchers and theorists by ‘othering’ those
whose daily experiences are being theorized about (Brydon-Miller et al., 2004).
In the projects that Wendy and Colleen have been involved in, the women
without high school or post-secondary education who collaborated in theorizing
about their own situations and the action steps needed to promote their health,
challenged stigmas and stereotypes about their capacities (Reid, Frisby, & Ponic,
2002; Reid, 2004a). Some expressed interest in and enthusiasm for having their
voices heard as part of a theory-building process. Others were more cynical about
the potential benefits of collective theorizing because of disappointments associated with raised expectations for change that had not been actualized in the past
(Reid et al., 2006). Despite the inherent shortcomings of any theory, we argue
that when one or more feminist theories are augmented by participatory
approaches that generate local knowledges, theories can help us think together
about historically entrenched forms of gender inequality; the systems, ideas, and
policies that reproduce them; the importance of individual choice and selfdetermination; along with potential avenues for social justice.
A major challenge was to find a common ground upon which to communicate, because university-based action researchers are rewarded for using a schol-
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
24 • Action Research 7(1)
arly language by publishers, research granting agencies, and our own institutions
(Frisby et al., 2005). This was complicated by the fact that the diverse women in
feminist participatory action research projects with Wendy and Colleen spoke
different languages and the various community partners (e.g. from women’s
centres, family services, public health, municipal recreation) were operating from
their own specialized professional norms and jargons. We collectively worked at
understanding one another, which was not always successful, but it did help to
bridge the diversity that characterized the group so we could work together to
develop knowledge translation strategies beyond traditional academic outlets.
For example, some of the community partners shared findings with their employers to change policy, while some of the women shared their stories with
others living in poverty, politicians, and the media to draw attention to and act
upon their concerns.
Where to from here?
Theories help us make sense of the world and shape and inform our methods and
actions. Whether we are explicit about it or not, theory is embedded in our practices and in the structures that shape or constrain them. To be consistent with
action research principles means acknowledging how tensions between practices
and ways of knowing can reinforce inequalities or facilitate change and innovation. This means not only valuing theory and practice, but valuing how we relate
to and makes sense of one another across the multiple social locations and situations we occupy.
Naming the feminist theories from which we conduct action research may
assist in producing knowledge on a more equitable basis, because they provide
alternative theoretical frameworks, strategies, and tools for understanding and
questioning taken-for-granted assumptions and power arrangements (Beilin &
Boxelaar, 2001). More recent feminist theories challenge simple binaries between
men/women, theory/practice, North/South, us/them. As such, they have much to
offer in terms of an overt theory-action connection that is essential to any action
research with transformative or inclusive intentions (Lykes & Coquillon, 2006;
Maguire & Berge, 2009; Weiner, 2004). Yet a number of questions remain such
as: who develops theories, who does and does not benefit from feminist theories
and how, how can existing feminist theories be integrated into action research,
and how can action research build upon, challenge, and create new theories that
consider intersecting axes of oppression?
We and others have found that one of the best ways to theorize is to collectively ask questions to get at the underlying power dynamics contributing to
patterns of domination, subordination, and oppression. It is by raising questions
across many facets of social life including lived experience, identities, social struc-
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
Frisby et al.
How feminist theories inform action research • 25
tures, and cultural discourses, that the gaps in existing explanatory frameworks
are revealed (Davis, 2008). Raising questions about ‘theory’ and the ‘f’ word and
how they can contribute to and be advanced by action research represent important starting points. Bridging theory, method, and action is never an easy undertaking. However, we see tremendous value in attempting to do so, because
feminist theories help unmask taken-for-granted social practices that reinforce
hierarchies and exclusions, while revealing new social change strategies that can
directly contribute to the transformative aims of action research.
Notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
In just one example, Lorber (2005) identifies several different feminist theories
including liberal, Marxist, socialist, post-colonial, radical, lesbian, psychoanalytic, standpoint, multicultural/multiracial, feminist studies of men, social
construction, postmodern, and third wave.
By deductive, we mean starting with existing theories and ‘testing’ them to see
how they apply in different action research contexts. By inductive, we mean starting from local theories and determining how they inform existing theories or
create new ones.
We acknowledge that developments in feminist theories have not been linear or
convergent and that we are only able to briefly describe their potential contributions and limitations.
Patriarchy refers to men’s control of economic resources, entitlement to sexual
services, domination of political processes and positions of authority, and a sense
of superiority that positions women as inferior (Lorber, 2005).
Essentialism is the notion that there is a single experience of being a woman that
is independent from other aspects of that person (e.g. race and class) that is stable
and has a clear meaning through time, space, culture, and history (Hackett &
Haslanger, 2006).
We see ourselves and those we work with as both action researchers and practitioners, rather than dichotomizing that we are the ‘researchers’ while communitybased participants are the ‘practitioners’. University-based action researchers are
engaged in practice and activism, although we bring many privileges to the work
which creates power imbalances that need to be carefully reflected upon.
Similarly, community-based participants are increasingly involved in research in
varying capacities, often conducting the research themselves.
References
Beilin, R., & Boxelaar, L. (2001). Rethinking action research: Theory and extension
practice. In Australian Pacific Extension Network 2001 International
Conference Proceedings. University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba,
Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from: http://www.regional.org.au/au/apen/
2001/r/BeilinR.htm#TopOfPage
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
26 • Action Research 7(1)
Berge, B. M., & Ve, H. (2000). Action research for gender equity. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Brydon-Miller, M., Maguire, P., & McIntyre, A. (Eds.). (2004). Traveling companions: Feminism, teaching, and action research. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Butler, J. (1994). Against proper objects. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural
Studies, 6(2), 1–16.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and
violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A social science perspective on what
makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–86.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Frisby, W., Reid, C., & Ponic, P. (2007). Levelling the playing field: Promoting the
health of poor women through a community development approach to recreation. In K. Young & P. White (Eds.), Sport and gender in Canada (pp. 121–
136). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Frisby, W., Reid, C., Miller, S., & Hoeber, L. (2005). Putting ‘participatory’ into
participatory forms of action research. Journal of Sport Management, 19(4),
367–386.
Guijt, I., & Shah, M. K. (Eds). (1998). The myth of community: Gender issues in
participatory development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Hackett, E., & Haslanger, S. (2006). Theorizing feminisms. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the
privilege of partial perspectives. Feminist Studies, 14, 575–599.
Hearn, J. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men. Feminist
Theory, 5(1), 49–72.
Hemmings, C. (2007). What is a feminist theorist responsible for? Feminist Theory,
8(1), 69–76.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory from margin to center. Boston, MA: South End
Press.
hooks, b. (1998). Men: Comrades in struggle. In S. Schacht & D. Ewing (Eds.),
Feminism and men: Reconstructing gender relations (pp. 265–279). New York:
New York University Press.
Lorber, J. (2005). Gender inequality: Feminist theories and politics. Los Angeles, CA:
Roxbury Publishing.
Lykes, B., & Coquillon, E. (2006). Participatory and action research and feminisms:
Towards transformative praxis. In S. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist
research: Theory and praxis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst,
MA: The Centre for International Education, University of Massachusetts.
Maguire, P. (2001). Uneven ground: Feminisms and action research. In P. Reason &
H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and
practice (pp. 59–69). London: SAGE.
Maguire, P., & Berge, B. M. (2009). Elbows out, arms linked: Claiming spaces for
feminisms and gender equity in educational action research. In S. Noffke & B.
Somekh (Eds.), Handbook of educational action research (pp. 311–319).
London: SAGE.
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
Frisby et al.
How feminist theories inform action research • 27
Maguire, P., Brydon-Miller, M., & McIntyre, A. (2004). Introduction. In M. BrydonMiller, P. Maguire, & A. McIntyre (Eds.), Traveling companions: Feminism,
teaching, and action research (pp. ix–xix). Westport, CT: Praeger.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in
Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771–1800.
McCann, C., & Kim, S. K. (Eds.). (2003). Feminist theory reader: Local and global
perspectives. New York: Routledge.
McCready, L. (2004). Understanding the marginalization of gay and gender nonconforming black male youth. Theory into Practice, 43(2), 136–143.
McEwan, C. (2001). Postcolonialism, feminism and development: Intersections and
dilemmas. Progress in Development Studies, 1(2): 93–111.
McIntyre, A. (1997). Making meaning of whiteness: Exploring racial identity with
white teachers. Albany: State University of New York Press.
McIntyre, A. (2000). Inner-city kids: Adolescents confront life and violence in an
urban community. New York: New York University Press.
McIntyre, A., & Lykes, M. B. (2004). Weaving words and pictures in/through feminist participatory action research. In M. Brydon-Miller, P. Maguire & A.
McIntyre (Eds.), Traveling companions: Feminism, teaching, and action
research (pp. 57–78). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Mohanty, C. T. (1988). Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist Review, 30, 61–88.
Mohanty, C. T. (2004). Feminism without borders: Decolonizing theory, practicing
solidarity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Nealon, J., & Giroux, S. S. (2003). The theory toolbox: Critical concepts in the
humanities, arts, and social sciences. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield
Publishers.
Noffke, S. (1998, July). What’s a nice theory like yours doing in a practice like this?
And other impertinent questions about practitioner research. Keynote address
presented at the 2nd International Practitioner Research Conference. Sydney,
Australia.
Ong, A. (1988). Colonialism and modernity: Feminist representations of women in
non-western societies. Inscriptions, 3(4), 79–104.
Pheterson, G. (1990). Alliances between women: Overcoming internalized oppression
and internalized domination. In L. Albrecht & R. M. Brewer (Eds.), Bridges of
power: Women’s multicultural alliances (pp. 34–47). Gabriola Island, BC: New
Society Publishers.
Ponic, P. (2007). Embracing complexity in community-based health promotion:
Inclusion, power and women’s health. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of British Columbia.
Ramazanoglu, C., & Holland, J. (2002). Feminist methodology: Challenges and
choices. London: SAGE.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of action research:
Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed., pp. 93–105). London: SAGE.
Reid, C. (2004a). The wounds of exclusion: Poverty, women’s health, and social justice. Edmonton, AB: Qualitative Institute Press.
Reid, C. (2004b). Advancing women’s social justice agendas: A feminist action research framework. International Journal of Qualitative Method, 3(3), Article 1.
Reid, C., & Frisby, W. (2007). Continuing the journey: Articulating dimensions of
feminist participatory action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.),
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
28 • Action Research 7(1)
Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.,
pp. 93–105). London: SAGE.
Reid, C., Frisby, W., & Ponic, P. (2002). Confronting two-tiered community recreation and poor women’s exclusion: Promoting inclusion, health, and social
justice. Canadian Women’s Studies, 21(3), 88–94.
Reid, C., Tom, A., & Frisby, W. (2006). Finding the ‘action’ in feminist participatory
action research. Action Research, 4(3), 313–330.
Rooney, P. (1998). Men, work, and family: The case for a subjective approach to
an objective problem. European Families and Work Network, New Ways,
pp. 1–12.
Schacht, S., & Ewing, D. (Eds.). (1998). Introduction. In Feminism and men: Reconstructing gender relations (pp. 1–17). New York: New York University Press.
Spivak, G. C. (1990). The postcolonial critic: Interviews, strategies, dialogues (S.
Harasym, Ed.). New York: Routledge.
Thompson, N. (2000). Theory and practice in human services. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Wang, C., Burris, M. A., & Ping, X. Y. (1996). Chinese village women as visual
anthropologists: A participatory approach to reaching policymakers. Social
Science & Medicine, 42(10), 1391–1400.
Weiner, G. (2004). Critical action research and third wave feminism: A meeting of
paradigms. Educational Action Research, 12(4), 631–644.
Williams, J., & Lykes, B. (2003). Bridging theory and practice: Using reflexive cycles
in feminist participatory action research. Feminism & Psychology, 13(3), 287–
294.
Yoshihama, M., & Carr, E. S. (2002). Community participation considered: Feminist
participatory action research with Hmong women. Journal of Community
Practice, 10(4), 85–102.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of
Women’s Studies, 13(3), 193–210.
Wendy Frisby is the Chair of Women’s and Gender Studies and a Professor in the
School of Human Kinetics at the University of British Columbia in Canada. She has
been working on various feminist participatory action research projects for over 15
years, mostly with women living in poverty in community-based health promotion
contexts. Address: School of Human Kinetics, 210 War Memorial Gym, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z1.
[Email: frisby@interchange.ubc.ca]
Patricia Maguire is Chair of the Gallup Graduate Studies Center, Western New
Mexico University, Gallup, New Mexico. She has worked as a school and mental
health counsellor, international development trainer (Africa, Jamaica), and community activist. For the past 20 years Pat has been a member of a collaborative team
developing transformative-oriented graduate education programs in a rural community on the edge of the Navajo Nation and Pueblo of Zuni. Her teaching, net-
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009
Frisby et al.
How feminist theories inform action research • 29
working, and research interests include the interface between feminisms and participatory action research and teacher action research. Address: Western New Mexico
University, Gallup Graduate Studies Center, 2055 State Road 602, Gallup, NM
87301, USA. [Email: maguirep@wnmu.edu]
Colleen Reid is the Research Director for the Women’s Health Research Network in
British Columbia, Canada. In 2002 she earned an Interdisciplinary PhD from the
University of British Columbia, and in 2007 she completed a postdoctoral fellowship
in Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University. In her research, Colleen focuses on
women’s health issues, the social determinants of health, and community-based
research methodologies. Address: Institute for Critical Studies in Gender and Health,
Simon Fraser University Vancouver – Harbour Centre Campus, Room 3220, 515
West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6B 5K3.
[Email: colleenreid@telus.net]
Downloaded from http://arj.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 22, 2009