Explicit and Implicit Sexualities within Education Research Narratives and Researcher Process.
Cathy Gibbons and Donna Bulman. Faculty of Education. University of Nottingham.
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, England, 12-14 September 2002
Abstract
Traditional methodologies place the researcher and the researched within an insider outsider dichotomy. This becomes problematic as assumptions may be made when issues of sexuality arise in research, whether as an implicitpart of the research agendaor explicit. These assumptions have a variety of affects such as silencing, censoring, minimising, maximising and deflecting within the interview narrative. This paper highlights how the research process is altered as result of acknowledging different sexualities. It examines the place of the unspoken tensions around otherness in research, and explores questions that are usually unspoken, silenced, or overlooked in relation to women’s sexualities.
In order to highlight these challenges the research process from two separate studies from the UK and Canada will be examined. The first is a study of the experience of lesbian educators in the UK, where the issue of the sexuality of the participants and researcher is an explicit and substantive issue in the research. The second is a study of women from the Maritime Provinces of Canada and their educational experiences within the context of the HIV epidemic, in which issues of the researcher and participants’ sexualities are both implicit and explicit within the research experience.
Introduction
Qualitative research, specifically interview narrative and its analysis, is associated with concern for the representation of experience, the higher profiling of human qualities, and the representation of voice, with emphasis generally on a single identity and a single voice (Cotazzi, 2001). It is recognised that reflexivity is called for in the process. This paper is based on two research studies. The first study occurred within the United Kingdom and aimed initially to explore the experiences of lesbian teachers. The second study took place in Canada and attempted to determine how women in Atlantic Canada learn about HIV and how they may learn about it more effectively in the future. This paper came to be written as a result of conversations where as novice researchers we shared our anxieties and concerns over the twists and turns our interviews took in what women were saying to us, and how we responded intellectually and emotionally to them. We felt challenged in the maintenance of our personal and research integrity. This paper is our attempt to be reflexive and is an effort to clarify and resolve the tensions we felt with particular regard to issues of sexuality and 'otherness' in our research.
We are students in different schools of the same faculty and we are often perceived by others to be doing similar research although one set of research is with lesbian teachers in the UK and the other is with women in Canada within the context of the worldwide HIV epidemic. The similarities that are perceived may be because both projects focus on women exclusively, and both have strong themes of sex and sexuality. In addition, in both instances some of the interviews involve people who may be considered 'other' within the dominant heterocentric discourse. It is apparent therefore that as researchers we might have something to say to each other.
Methods
In terms of method we are both using interviews to gather data and are analysing the data qualitatively. We need to point out that although we have a shared ontological perspective, methodologically we have different epistemological positionings. The study with lesbian teachers in the UK can be considered to have a verstehen-hermeneutic perspective (Erben, 1998) and a grounded theoretical approach to data collection and analysis is being used. Lesbian teachers were interviewed mostly in their own homes. The questions were semi-structured around seven broad themes of identity, power, separation, norms & values, effectiveness, structures, and cost/benefit. The techniques of active interviewing were used (Holstein, 1995). The study with women in Atlantic Canada is influenced by multiple perspectives, one of which is feminist theory. In addition, the researcher has an understanding that reality is multiple in nature and both constructed within an individual's world and heavily influenced by the social context. Finally, all interactions are understood to occur in relation to the intentions of those involved in the interaction. Information was obtained by interviewing thirty women, conducting two focus groups, and carrying out two joint interviews. Like the interviews described earlier, the interviews were semi-structured and as in-depth as possible.
As already stated, one of the reasons we wrote this paper was to clarify and in part to demonstrate reflexivity in our own research process. The paper was written by a process of informal discussion, presentation of our ideas to each other in writing, further formal and informal discussion, and a structured interview on the conceptualisation of our own sexuality, further writing, and an expansion and editing phase. This information is offered in the spirit of commitment to the demystification of academic processes.
Tensions? What tensions?
In the UK study, accounts of lesbian sexualities were conceptualised in a variety of ways by the women interviewed many of which are articulated in previous literature by Choi & Nicolson (1994), Kitzinger (1987) and Wilkinson & Kitzinger (1993). These conceptualisations include essentialist or biological accounts (I was born like this), personal fulfilment and accounts related to psychological models of human behaviour (I am happy and healthy this way), bisexual or non-gendered accounts (the person is important not their gender), personal or private individualistic accounts (who I sleep with has got nothing to do with anyone else), politicised accounts (who I have sex with is a political choice and act), and pathological (I wouldn’t choose to be a lesbian). Identities may also be expressed as fluid over time, or combined. Despite my awareness of these models of accounts and the possibility of encountering them tension still arose when similarities or differences in the stories of the interviewee and myself became apparent during the course of the interview. Further tension came from feeling that to follow my instincts in how I felt with a participant may result in a methodological error that stymies the validity or veracity of the findings. I’m not a mind reader; I can’t predict where an interview will go as a result of particular interaction. At times I felt that I might alienate my participant if I revealed myself as an insider or an outsider especially when I felt that I was neither an insider nor an outsider, for instance in issues of class and nationality. Like Nicky Hallett, I find myself confused by my own different voices and “this leaves me holding a weak sense of ‘I’ and ‘We.’” (Hallett, 1999)
In the Canadian study sexuality is conceptualised as being separate from gender but closely linked to it. Sexuality is defined "by whom one has sex with, in what ways, why, under what circumstances, and with what outcomes" (Gupta, 2000:2). In addition, Gupta (2000) identifies the five P's of sexuality, which I find helpful in understanding the complexity surrounding sexuality. They are as follows: practices, partners, pleasure/pressure/pain/, procreation, and power. An individual's sexuality identity is partially defined by both the implicit and explicit rules of society. Sexuality is presumed to be dynamic and multidimensional and to involve more than sexual behaviour.
Here is a quote from an interview in which the person in which a discussion of my sexual identity did not occur:
…Because I was active in gay issues and the mother of a gay son…, that I was kind of a token mother out there. That I must be lesbian myself and I would take strenuous efforts to say that I was not lesbian…and afterwards I thought like probably about six or seven years ago I thought "who gives a shit?" ….It is my issue and who cares if I'm gay or straight.
I believe this person is expressing an individualistic account of their sexuality.
My tensions relating to being an insider or outsider were many. Sometimes I was both an insider and an outsider. Sometimes I was neither. For example, when I was interviewing straight women I was an insider but not a complete insider, if the interviewee was currently married, was disabled, or was responsible for the care of small children. In addition, when I was interviewing people who had not declared their HIV status was I an insider or an outsider? Finally when I was interviewing lesbian women, surprisingly I often felt very much like an insider as I could often identify partially with the struggles about which they were articulating. Is it possible (probable) that although I was feeling partially like an insider the participant was perceiving me very much as an outsider? A major problem I have with this the insider/outsider dichotomy is that it doesn’t allow for the complexity of individuals. Can a person really be an insider or an outsider based on one or two traits?
Terminology
The first step in gaining clarity was to identify and review briefly the terminology associated with our tensions. It is of course a common complaint that we use common words without making it clear what we mean by them. Some authors were clear in their definitions. Plummer, (2001:251) defines 'otherness' as ‘those that are marginalized’. Seidler (2000) is cited in Ramazanoglu and Holland (2002:34) as noting that humanity's 'other' can be defined as "not fully or not yet human - hence feminine, immature, savage, flawed, or deviant." According to Stuart & Thomson (1995) the concepts of both 'other' and 'othering' describe the way we make sense of people who we perceive to be different than ourselves. The term 'other' was originally used by cultural historians who applied this concept to the people in other areas of the world. Generally those who were 'other' were perceived to be inferior. Anthropologists later entrenched this term by studying 'other' cultures using a Euro-centric perspective (Stuart & Thomson, 1995). Oftentimes these cultures were explained in romantic or derogatory terms. One example from the Canadian research in which one of the participants may have been 'othering’ a group of HIV positive women is as follows:
But that is one of the things with the HIV positive woman's group-. I really tried to make sure because I don't-. You know, I'm not a needle user. I haven't worked in the sex trade. I haven't been incarcerated. […] And, but those woman-. That was their reality.
However, it is also possible this participant was just being sensitive to the differences, which existed between herself and the people with whom she was working.
The definition of other that we agreed upon for this paper is, that which is not myself or which is unlike my familiars.
Walkerdine (1997) indicates the term difference is used to explain how people are actually situated in relation to one another. When thinking about difference within the research process it is important to recognise that 'difference from' must be thought about in conjunction with something thought of as 'not different.' (Ramazanoglu & Holland, 2002). We believe the term difference is somehow related to a mythical norm upon which it may be judged against. These norms may include sexual preference, size, gender, sex, race, colour, etc.
Much has been written about voice especially in relation to its connection with empowerment (Griffiths, 1998). According to Lincoln and Guba (2000:183) it is a "multilayered problem" because voice has come to mean different things to different researchers. Hertz (1997: xi-xii) describes voice as having multidimensions. She states
"First, there is the voice of the author. Second there is the presentation of the voices of one's respondents within the text. A third dimension occurs when the self is the subject of inquiry…."
The different conceptualisations of voice may be clearer if one reflects on the following questions: who or what is the voice ascribed to?; what is the relationship of the voice to agency, chance, and discursive formations?; and is the voice seen as struggling to get a hearing or conceptualised as creative or productive? (Griffths, 1998). The problem with 'voice' or 'voices' is that they may be edited away by the researcher. We prefer to call these edited voices ‘layered accounts’.
Different voices are evidence of the modern human being as self conscious with an unstable identity, with post-late modern identities being described as more relational and relating. (Plummer, 2001) This description might be the one to replace ‘insider/outsider’. The interviewees are after all telling stories where they interpret themselves and the meaning of their histories. They may re-tell, re-interpret, and change these stories many times over their life. This according to Plummer fits into the psychological models of uncertain self.
A major difficulty within the Canadian study is recognising whose voice belongs to whom. Oftentimes as I have written reports on this ongoing research I have wondered is this me (the researcher) talking or is this the participant? In addition, because this research is carried out in a very rural area of Canada, issues of confidentiality, recognition, and identity are always present especially when voices are presented in their raw form.
Women’s sexualites and the research process
The aim here has not been to pin down final versions of the words in the previous section but to make clear what we mean by them in the context of our research and this paper. Sexuality was conceptualised in many ways by the women in both projects and was clearly not a simple issue, even within a group of self identified lesbian women.
Ruth
My sexual identity has been….very much about defined by who I’m seeing. And when I’m not seeing anybody, I’ve tended to sort of label myself kind of queer, or bisexual… But I still kind of resist that.. being put in a box. Y’know that doesn’t mean that I’m saying that I’ll never have feelings for a man, nor does it necessarily mean that I will, do you know what I mean? Yeah, I kind of resist that a little bit. But y’know, strategically I suppose I call myself a lesbian…. If you’d’ve said ‘queer teachers’, then that would’ve y’know really upset some people, and it’s also quite an ambivalent term. There’s no word you could use, and I think I kind of, I just tacitly recognise that that’s the way it is. That we use words that are for convenience’s sake. We find the nearest fit, if you like. And I guess that that’s my nearest fit.
C. Is it a political word, ‘Lesbian’?
R. Yeah, definitely. It’s definitely a political word. And there are times when I use it quite.. …you know I use the word; I choose to use the word because I think it’s a very powerful word, em, a lot of people, I heard a lot of people have said, they don’t like the word, as well, because it’s always been associated with;it’s a term of abuse, and as a put down. And it’s still..It’s still, I think it’s still a dirty word in a way that perhaps gay isn’t. Yeah, but it’s definitely political.
Jo
C. I’m assuming that you consider your sexuality fundamental?
J. I think it’s the best part about me. Definitely. I wouldn’t change it if I had the choice, I don’t think. I think it’s the best thing about me. It makes me who I am, I think it’s great.
C. Do you think of lesbianism as a political issue?
J. (Pause) No, and Yes…and not really.
In the Canadian research most of the women who entered into discussions about their sexual identity were either lesbian women or those who felt their sexual identity did not fit in with the dominant identity; that of a heterosexual identity. The following quotation illustrates this:
You have to understand that-. I didn't leave-. I was married for ten years. I did not leave my ex-husband because I fell in love with a woman. I left because I was unhappy. Um, and the marriage was pretty much over for the last two years that I was there anyway. Um, I don't believe that I'm gay. Um, I believe I fell in love with a person first and foremost and realised later 'Oh my gosh! You're a woman.' Um, I don't believe I'm bisexual. This all sounds very strange I know. I've had gay people tell me that, um, I'm in denial. I've had heterosexual people tell me that I'm not bisexual but I know that God forbid if anything happened to my partner and if I ever wanted to go out again it would be with a man. It's just that this is my soul mate and the light of my life. It's just that this happened to be. It’s a very bizarre thing I know but that's the way it is.
The above quotation is from an interview in which the participant knew that I was "straight." Would she have spoken differently had I been lesbian or if she was unsure of my sexual identity? Did the assumptions we had about one another have the effect of silencing, censoring, minimising, maximising and deflecting information that was shared within the interview narrative?
To ask explicit questions about sexual identity within research connected implicitly with sexuality is considered by Cathy (perhaps naively) to be pertinent to the process. This is to avoid assumptions being made, to amplify voices that are largely silenced or marginalized by society, to address political issues. The issue of sexuality is considered by others to be a private matter. A tension was experienced for me with some of my participants, who do not have a political agenda. This raises issues of the power of the researcher and the place of the voice of the researcher.