Rural Women in Leadership. Lori Ann McVay

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ has grown within the discipline (Hughes et al., 2000). In the words of Pini (2003a, p. 422): ‘It is not the method we use, but how we use the method that gives value to women’s experience’.

       2.4 Participant Profiles

      In order to provide a context facilitative of an informed and relational hearing of the women’s accounts of their ‘lived reality’ (Jack, 1991), it will be helpful here to profile the range of social locations that they occupied (Emirbayer, 1997). These profiles are drawn from the women’s responses to the interview questions, and so broadly adhere to the contours of the interview schedule beginning with participants’ identities as rural/woman/leader and continuing from their families of origin to the subjects of religion and church involvement, educational experiences, extracurricular activities and leadership opportunities.

      In the final step (Step 4) of Gilligan et al.’s ‘Listening Guide’ (2003, p. 168), the listener is instructed to ‘return to the research question that initiated this inquiry’ and ask what she or he has ‘learned about this question through this process’. In revisiting this study’s primary research question, it became apparent that listening to the women’s verbalizations of themselves as rural, as women and as leaders was primary to any discussion of their leadership development. Bearing this in mind, a summary of the ways in which participants identified themselves as ‘rural’, as ‘woman’ and as ‘leader’ is presented below.

      The women’s articulations of their identities as ‘rural’ and ‘woman’ were often less formal than their articulations of the definition of leadership and how they saw themselves filling (and/or not filling) that role. In part, this can be attributed to the directness of the questions I asked regarding their definition of leadership and fulfilment of the role of leader, as opposed to the more generalized discussions of the subjects of rurality and womanhood dispersed throughout the interviews. This may also be partially attributed to their comfort level in self-identifying as ‘rural’ and ‘women’ (which appeared as well-defined concepts in their narratives) and the nebulous nature of the definition of leadership. Nevertheless, clear articulations of their self-concepts in all three areas emerged as they narrated their lived experiences.

       2.4.1 Identity: Rural

      I will always say that my, um, the fact that I was brought up in a rural community, that I’ve chosen to live there and bring my children up in a rural community, it’s very much part of my cultural identity. Um, and the, and, the fabric of my culture and identity. It’s another layer.

      -Barbara (emphasis hers)

      But, if you’re asking me, I’m a peasant woman. And proud of it. And I, I love, eh, rural Ireland.

      -Eva

      The centrality of rurality to many of the women’s concepts of self is clearly captured in the two statements above. In accord with the work of Mahon (2007), which suggests that having one widely accepted definition of ‘rural’ is not as important as the lived experience of the person speaking about the concept, participants’ individual identities and perspectives resulted in the voicing of many versions of ‘rural’ in their narratives. For Joan, rural meant ‘small town’:

      [It] was a small town. About, um, twenty-five mile, thirty mile from Belfast. Called [town]. And, half there and half in [another town], which is an even smaller town. A further five mile on. And so sort of one-street towns. And, living on the outskirts of those.

      For Maureen, it meant ‘the country’:

      Yes, I grew up in the country. I grew up beside [a lough] – the western shores of [the lough]. Um, we lived about, maybe a mile and a half from the lough. Where I live now, I moved five miles down the road, but I’m nearer the lough now. Um, we had a country upbringing.

      Sara’s concept of rurality included a mixture of town and farm references:

      My family were farming, a farming family.… Daddy, me father, didn’t work outside, none of my parents worked outside the home. The farm was their main source of income … Yes, we lived- [name of place]. Which is a small townland. Um, it’s about fifteen miles from [larger town]. Um, we have a primary school and a post office, but that would be about it, in terms of services. Um [town] would be the nearest town, and it would be four miles away.

      And, finally, Olivia and Patricia both defined ‘rural’ in terms of farming:

      O: Well, I grew up in rural [county]. So, we lived on a farm … When I was very little, I can remember, sheep, cattle and pigs and hens on the farm, as well as beef cattle. But, gradually then, it became an all-beef farm. And that’s what it is now, with my brother still on the farm.

      P: I grew up on a farm as well. South [county]. Um. It was, quite a small farm.… And we had pigs. But, like Olivia said there were always, hens, and, maybe a cow, and milk, and then, a goat. Which, I usually had responsibility for [laughs]. And things like that around the farm as well. Um. But i-it did become more intensive. And certainly, say the number of sows, for example, would have been, been built up, built up, and, the age at which the pigs were weaned would have been reduced. And I would have been very much aware of all of those issues. And very much involved, in all of those issues. Um. R- really, growing up on a farm, you had to do all those things.

      Not all of the women were as vocal as Eva and Barbara in identifying themselves as ‘rural’ (see quotes at the beginning of this segment). Nevertheless, many of the participants’ narratives conveyed a similar love of place, thus strengthening claims purporting that identities are contextually specific (Bock, 2006). This was especially true of the narratives in which being from a rural area was not singled out as an extraordinary fact, but rather as normality, as with Irene: ‘I grew up in [small town], in the country.… Always kind of in the rural. I always kind of stayed close to home.’ For Veronica, it showed in her account of having to leave her rural home in order to obtain a job promotion:

      I did live in a rural area up until two years ago. But if I really wanted to follow promotion and if I really wanted to get to, I’m middle management in this organization … If I wanted to get [to] that level, I had to leave my area. You know. Um. There aren’t that many promotional opportunities for women in rural areas.… And, and that’s a bit of a disadvantage. I couldn’t have this job without moving to the city. And that’s regrettable. For rural women. For rural society. For, rural development. That’s a bit regrettable.

      Regardless of the differences in terminology and concepts used to define ‘rural’, each of the women’s narratives reflected the indelible impact of the ‘rural’ on their lives and personal identities. As will be shown in the next section, these rural identities connected in fascinating ways with their identities as women.

       2.4.2 Identity: Woman

      Well. Don’t, don’t try to be a man, is one thing. I mean, and that’s something that I would have fought very hard because as I said I was very much right through working in a man’s world. Even down to the fact I refused to get dressed up in a navy pinstripe suit. I thought, ‘I’m not doing that!’ [laughs] … But probably as I got older, I always wore a skirt. And I made a point of doing it. ‘I’m not going to come in here as the, you know, sort of, [laughing] half-man type person wearing pants.’ So, I mean, even wee things like that, I refused, I refused to to be turned into into a man. And I mean at times, I mean whenever they would have been debating things- I mean [I] feel I was coming from СКАЧАТЬ