Rural Women in Leadership. Lori Ann McVay

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ p. 179) and daughter of a farm family, among many others (see Section 3.1.1). To quote Pini (2004b, p. 172): ‘The questions I was interested in as an academic were similar to those which plagued me growing up and in my roles as granddaughter … and daughter to farmers. I could not separate myself as the “daughter of … farmers” from myself as “academic”, as traditional research paradigms would assert is necessary.’ In so identifying her multiple subjectivities, Pini was able to reveal the ways in which they influenced her production of knowledge, and also to acknowledge the limitations of reflexivity in capturing the complexity of shifting and multiple researcher identities (Pini, 2004a). Similarly, I began by practising reflexivity in the design of this research, and incorporated reflection as an on-going part of the research. This continuous practice assisted in analysis, as it revealed relationships between topic, people, social circumstances and methodology (Brewer, 2000).

       2.3 Analysis

       2.3.1 Method of analysis: the ‘Listening Guide’

      Initially, analysis of data was to be carried out utilizing software. However, having carefully transcribed the interviews in the ‘mode of naturalism’ (Oliver et al., 2005, p. 1273) – including verbal stops, starts and notations of emotional expressions such as sighs and laughter – the partitioning of transcripts required by the software proved unsatisfactory. A search for alternatives led to a method of analysis that much more closely aligned with the aims and objectives of this study, with feminist thought and with Brewer’s criteria. This method – the ‘Listening Guide’ – was developed by Carol Gilligan and colleagues as a means of allowing multiple voices to emerge from a single interview, thereby revealing both the internal and societal (external) complexity of the individuals being interviewed and creating space for the reflexive voice of the researcher to be easily identified and to inform the analysis (Gilligan et al., 2003). Mauthner and Doucet’s (2003) recognition of the importance of reflexivity during analysis (as it stands alongside continuous reflexivity in the data-gathering phase) is reaffirmed by Gilligan et al.’s (2003) emphasis on the accessibility and identification of the reader/listener’s voice.

      The Listening Guide ‘… is centred on a set of basic questions about voice: Who is speaking and to whom, telling what stories about relationship, in what societal and cultural frameworks?’ (Gilligan et al., 2003, p. 159). These questions are pursued via multiple readings (‘listenings’) of the interview texts, with each reading focused on a particular aspect of the story being told. Gilligan et al. (2003) describe the steps as follows. The first reading (Step 1), is a listening both for the plot (including the speaker’s social context) of the story and for the listener’s response (including the listener’s social context) to the story. The second reading (Step 2) makes note of the use of the word ‘I’ in the interviews – putting together ‘I’ (first-person) statements into lists called ‘I-Poems’. This step is meant to draw the listener into the interviewee’s life in a way that minimizes objectification of the speaker. The third reading (Step 3) is based on the musical idea of counterpoint, in which multiple melodic lines interweave to create a complex piece of music. As such, Step 3 involves listening for two or more voices within the narrative – voices that may either contradict or complement each other, but are nevertheless in relationship to each other. It therefore allows the reader/listener to recognize that one statement may have multiple meanings or reflect multiple voices on the part of the speaker, and that actions undertaken in relation to those meanings are reflective of the ‘sense’ the speaker makes of ‘social existence’ (Roberts, 2002). The exploration of the relationships between these meanings/voices is key to producing a rich analysis that is faithful to the speaker’s voice(s). Additionally, this exploration assists in avoiding what Bridget Byrne (2003) refers to as the under-theorization of subjection resulting from neglecting to recognize relationships between multiple narratives. Its use in this study, in particular, contributes to scholarly debates through the utilization of Gilligan et al.’s (2003) method in examining the process of leadership development – an aspect of women’s experience for which her earlier work has been criticized for addressing insufficiently (Auerbach et al., 1985).

      It is important to note, in proceeding to the final step of the method, the presence of concerns regarding the ‘soft’, or ‘feminine’, nature of such methods in the writings of those who would place them over and against quantitative (or ‘hard’/‘masculine’) research (Gardner, 2001). Gardner addresses these concerns via the mandate to apply a rigorous and thorough analysis that creates room for the presence of multiple voices, which here culminates in the final step of the Listening Guide (Step 4). Having ‘listened’ to the transcripts a minimum of four times, with detailed notes and markings being made each time through, the reader/listener revisits the original research question and asks the following: ‘What have you learned about this question through this process and how have you come to know this?’ and ‘What is the evidence on which you are basing your interpretations?’ (Gilligan et al., 2003). Having asked these questions, the researcher then proceeds to bring each of the listenings back into relationship with each other, and – in exploring these relationships – to reveal the complexities of individuals’ experiences in such a way as to produce a multi-faceted analysis that avoids objectifying the speakers or reducing their experiences to one-dimensional data (Gilligan et al., 2003). This is especially important in light of methodological concerns regarding establishment of the veracity of such narratives (Gardner, 2001), and Byrne’s (2003, p. 32) assertion that ‘Not all individuals are able to present themselves at all times as coherent, whole subjects of a storied narrative’.

      The voice-centred relational method proved particularly useful for analysis of the semi-structured interview data, in that it facilitated the hearing of narratives related to particular topics in unexpected places and in unexpected forms, intertwined with narratives relating to other topics. For example, in examining the women’s accounts of their parents’ community involvement, I had initially intended to limit ‘community involvement’ to participation in community organizations. However, it quickly became apparent that the women were telling highly relevant stories of community involvement in other contexts. A story from Gwen’s narrative demonstrates this especially well. In speaking of her parents’ livelihood as proprietors of a pub, and the sectarian bombing that had caused them to build a house separate from the pub (as opposed to living over the pub as they had before the bombing), Gwen related the following:

      It was always a mixed community, and our bar was always mixed. And my parents would have influenced me very strongly too. A lot of the locals would have been outraged by [the bombing], and very supportive. And certainly, my parents always gave us a message about being non-sectarian. Everybody welcome, regardless of what- w- I grew up with a strong, I suppose, a- a sense of being Irish myself and my family, but equally, people came in, that, you know, w- would have seen themselves as British. And, and whatever. And that wasn’t a problem. It was just- Because it was the local pub, it was just a very much a focal point in the community.

      In this particular narrative, it becomes apparent that she is not only speaking of her parents’ leadership roles as business owners, but also their commitment to fostering a welcoming cross-community space. This example clearly illustrates the nuances found in each of the transcripts, as participants’ responses to questions at times housed multiple, shifting contexts and layers of meaning in relation to the study topic (Pini, 2004b). Two case studies are presented as examples in Chapter 3 to demonstrate the full process of this analysis and the quantity of rich data it produces.

       2.3.2 Limitations of analysis and representation of participants

      Although the researcher may speak with some authority in the writing up of the analysis, it is vitally important to the validity of the study that the researcher also admits to the limitations of their perspectives and portrayal of the reality of the research СКАЧАТЬ