Seduction and enlightenment in feminist action research (1).

Reid, Colleen

Throughout the research discussed in this paper, I expected the core issues and constraints experienced by the participants to emerge as I attempted to foster a collaborative environment and relationship. I believed that using feminist action research could widen feminism's theoretical lens thus enabling the identification of organizational issues and ideologies towards service delivery, meanwhile indicating routes toward lasting social change. Though it enabled a greater understanding of the research participants' daily issues and allowed me as the researcher to consistently check my assumptions and biases, found that power imbalances were often enforced and that the research site often inhibited a truly collaborative research environment.

A travers la recherche dont je discute dans cet article, je m'attendais a ce que se manifestent les questions fondamentales et contraintes dont ont eu l'experience les participantes alors que je tentais de developper un rapport ainsi qu'un environnement de collaboration. Je pensais que l'emploi de la methodologie de recherche feminisle participative elargirait l'objectif thearique du feminisme permettant ainsi l'identification de questions et ideologies d'ordre organisationnel taut en indiquant les chemins menant une transformation sociale durable. Ouoique cette approche ait rendu possible une meilleure comprehension des questions quotidiennes affectant les participantes de la recherche, ainsi qu'une remise en question continuelle de mes suppositions et biais, j'ai trouve que les desequilibres de pouvoir se trouvaient souvent renforcer et que le site de la recherche empechait souvent un environnement de recherche veritablement collaborateur.

Literature on participatory action research suggests that feminist research and feminist action research are representative of collaboration, negotiation, participation, emancipatory change and social action. As a first-time feminist researcher, I was committed to working with a group of low income young women, in the hope that, through my research, some positive change would be achieved. I also questioned the rhetoric of the women's organization with which I was working, the YWCA (Young Women's Christian Association), that claimed to empower and to foster self-reliance in all women. Given my research interests, I was convinced that Feminist Action Research (FAR) was suitable, would enable the construction of a theoretically guided and empirically rich critique, and would lead towards a program for social action. I was seduced by the theoretical and methodological promises of feminist action research, and embraced them as I embarked on my research.

After completing my case study, my work had no significant social or political effects, despite the promises of collaboration, negotiation and emancipatory change that I read in the FAR literature. The organizational setting and the power relations within the organization and the research setting made the application of feminist action research more difficult than I originally anticipated. On the other hand, reflexive work led to a sharp appreciation of the position of power from which I conducted the research, and of the participants' view of me. As a relatively privileged researcher who controlled the production of knowledge in that place and time, I may have unwittingly reproduced what I intended to undermine. This, coupled with FAR's promise of social emancipation in an unequal society and the unrealistic expectations feminist researchers impose on one another, produces a methodological and ideological challenge that plagues researchers striving for responsible and responsive research methods. Nonetheless , it is essential to confront reflexively these issues and to make a commitment to an emergent research design (Tom, 1996). Despite these contentious issues, feminist action researchers have an important role to play in the evolution of responsive and collaborative research approaches.

Seduction: Theoretical Underpinnings of Feminist Action Research

Conducting feminist research puts the social construction of gender at the centre of inquiry (Lather, 1991). Gender represents both a constitutive element of social relationships based upon perceived differences between the sexes, and a primary way of signifying relationships of power (Vertinsky, 1994). A feminist perspective lends a critical understanding, explanation and interpretation to the way modem society functions. Most feminist researchers want equality, empowerment, and social change for women (Henderson et al., 1989), and aim to change power embodied in gender and patriarchal structures. Certain goals are inherent in a feminist framework: to make visible women's power and status, to redefine social structures, and to enable every woman to have equity, dignity and freedom through power to control her life and body, both within and outside the home (Bunch, 1985a, cited in Henderson et al., 1989).

Feminist researchers see gender as a basic organizing principle which profoundly shapes and mediates the concrete conditions of our lives (Lather, 1991). Differences and inequalities exist in how gender is conceptualized, understood, and legitimized. Intimate and personal experiences of oppression are anchored in and sustained by a patriarchal organization of ruling, where our political vision has denied the distinction between the powers of the public (male) and the private (female) domains (Smith, 1987). Social structures that favour a male ideal and standard are intensified with this inequitable power distribution.

Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology developed after 1945 combined knowledge development and action (Green et al., 1995). Its goal was to support marginalized people in speaking, analyzing, building alliances, and taking action (Hall, 1993). Practitioners and researchers paid little attention to gender in the early days, subsuming it in terms such as the "people," the "community," or the "oppressed" (Maguire, 1987).

Feminist Action Research (FAR) evolved in response to the gender-blind politics of participatory action research. It aims to empower women who have traditionally been silenced and powerless in society, and to transform patriarchal social structures (Clarke, 1992). FAR puts control of the research process in participants' hands and emphasizes women's disempowerment.

Our framing of PAR must explicitly state that we are concerned with gender, class, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, different abilities, relation to nature, and relation to other species (Hall, 1993).

Theoretically, FAR is emancipatory, is negotiated between researcher and participants, and respects the diversity of women and their experiences (Reinharz, 1992). Integral to a feminist action research design is the acknowledgment and acceptance of multiple realities of women's lives, as well as valuing the shared creation of data between the researcher and participants (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). Theory, method and praxis are inseparable because the aim is to transform power relations from which marginalized women cannot be excluded (Roman and Apple, 1990).

Feminist action researchers recognize oppressive social conditions and challenge inequalities in society and in research. Feminist action research is a practical activity that carries heavy responsibilities (Martin, 1994) including a sharing of power between the researcher and the community and a new respect for control over knowledge development (Maguire, 1987; Reinharz, 1992; Wolf, 1996), in which research participants are no longer passive and objectified in the production of knowledge, and emancipatory change is made possible. Currently, few studies adopt an action component, with strong participatory methods where participants have substantial control over the study, and that allow a criticism of power relations in academia (Cancian, 1991, p. 629).

For my research purposes, I conceptualized FAR as a framework that blended feminist theory with participatory action research in order to make women central in my work. Since FAR espouses collaboration between "marginalized" women, service providers concerned about their welfare, and researchers, I assumed there would be a sense of collaboration, empowerment and trust among the research participants that would lead to emancipatory change. I believed that feminist action research would allow a community service to be a site for the construction of female identities that resist hegemonic definitions and that enable the articulation of women's individual experiences. However, the difficulties in adopting FAR and the tensions that arose as a result of that decision reflected many of the current contradictions central to feminist theory, research and action.

Feminist action research: methodology and methods

I conducted a case study over a six month period of an employment training program offered by the YWCA for young, low income single mothers. Since I struggled to apply feminist action research to the YWCA's organized setting, it was important to conceptualize the YWCA's organizational structure and arrangements. In January 1995, the YWCA underwent a complete reorganization and moved locations. The move to a new high-rent location in the downtown area coincided with the controversial opening of the YWCA Wellness Centre to male clientele. The rationale for allowing men to become members was to generate more income to manage the new building, and to subsidize community programs that were offered off site. After the move, the Wellness Centre became the central location for the delivery of all YWCA programs. The services provided on site were oriented towards health and wellness, including a fitness centre, a swimming pool, and a childcare facility. From the administrative floor of the Wellness Centre, over 30 pro gram locations in the local district were coordinated. Twenty of these programs serviced single mothers through support groups, counselling services, shelters, or employment training programs.

The YWCA mission statement talks about empowerment of women, and then in turn their children, and self-reliance, the provision of programs to provide particular skills and resources that women need to reach some kind of independence, and really that's what the [pre-employment training] program's all about. (YWCA service provider, June 1996)

Although the YWCA continues to cling to its longstanding mission to "empower women," I suspected that the YWCA's reorganization and new policy to admit men would negatively impact the involvement of those who most need the services of the YWCA -- women who are unable to pay for social or wellness services. The physical move of the YWCA facilities seemingly positioned that organization alongside more mainstream market-driven health and wellness facilities, while the YWCA's new upper-income surroundings raised doubts about the availability and accessibility of its services. Despite its relocation, the YWCA remained a woman's organization with loosely-stated liberal feminist ideals. I was dubious whether the YWCA could fulfill this mandate while located in prime real estate where very few of its clients lived, servicing both men and women. I also saw the dispersion of its services throughout a large geographic area while tightly controlling its administration through a hierarchical organizational structure and from one central location, as problematic.

My study involved interviews and focus groups with both the program facilitators and managers, and the program participants, with the aim of examining the provision and consumption of these services for low income single mothers, exploring points of disjuncture between service provision and consumption, and uncovering possibilities for emancipatory change. Over the course of my research I also became a participant observer in many of the sessions offered to the single mothers.

Three focus groups were conducted with a group of twelve single mothers, all of whom had their first child when they were teenagers and were living on social assistance. The focus groups were organized around the schedule of the employment program, and each lasted approximately 1.5 hours. Questions regarding the women's involvement with the YWCA and other government programs (social assistance) and their perceptions of services offered by the YWCA were explored. Their understandings of poverty and notions of reliance on services were discussed, and ideas for change emerged. I also questioned the women's involvement in the decision-making processes of the employment training program, how evaluations were conducted, and their overall experiences with service delivery.

I conducted interviews with six service providers from the YWCA, some of whom were facilitators for the employment training program, while others were managers who oversaw the program. I adopted a semi-structured interviewing approach to minimize control over the informant's responses, thus open-ended questions with probes for guidance were used. This facilitated the participants' ability to open up and express themselves in their own terms and at their own pace (Bernard, 1994). The service providers were interviewed for approximately one hour. These interviews focussed on the mandate and mission of the employment training program, the relation of this program to the organization of the YWCA, how the service providers administer and plan for the women in their program, and potential ideas for change.

Initial reflections on FAR

Initially, I failed to acknowledge the complexities that were presented by the research site, the diversity of research participants, and my relative power and privilege. I presumed that the very notion of being anchored in feminist action research would, by this virtue alone, enable an equitable negotiation of power differentials, thus supporting the clear emergence of the participants' voices.

Since I had my hopes and intentions for equitable and transformative research invested in a feminist action research process, the power dynamics I encountered became a source of frustration and confusion for me. What resulted was my documentation of my research participants in my fieldnotes while I engaged in my research as honestly and openly as possible. I realized that as an academic researcher I needed to acknowledge my position of power while consciously managing my responsibility as a person who has access to research and its power (Tom, 1996). By ignoring these differences in power, differences among women are effectively ignored and silenced (Tom, 1996).

Is feminist action research feasible within an organized setting?

Despite the YWCA's liberal feminist rhetoric, working in an established YWCA program inhibited my research and made it more difficult to conduct FAR. The YWCA pre-employment training program had been in operation for over five years, thus policies and practices were deeply rooted well before the admission of program participants and my own involvement. Within the program the service providers and single mothers were polarized and situated, respectively, as providers and consumers. Moreover, since the program had never provided for collaboration, a collaborative research design was unlikely to succeed.

The service providers associated with the training program had contrasting perspectives. Some acknowledged the structural and organizational tensions within the YWCA that made collaboration and a grassroots approach to service delivery more difficult. Others indicated that the YWCA's structure was the only approach to service delivery and one that did the best it could within its funding parameters. The service providers who upheld the YWCA's existing structure were also reticent in questioning the realities of the YWCA's mission statement. Other service providers were more open in discussing the ideals and current problems with the YWCA's services.

Despite the YWCA's mandate to empower women to become self-reliant and independent, there were no organizational strategies in place that would have permitted the single mothers' participation in decision-making towards organizational or structural change.

As far as planning curriculum, it's all the staff, as a team....We have a structure that we work within, like the curriculum, but we always give the participants choices as far as what they want to work on....The initial curriculum came from a survey, a feasibility study of young mothers. (YWCA service provider, August 1996)

While, in this example, a service provider claims the program supports some degree of participant involvement through feedback forms, one of the participants suggests that the forms were not acted upon and that the program participants were rarely asked for their input.

They ask for feedback but I don't think that they got anything done about it....They assume there weren't any major things going on, so it was only bright and shiny, you know, happy people. (YWCA program participant, August 1996)

Indeed, a major limitation imposed by the hierarchical organizational setting was that the staff had a difficult time envisioning any changes, and did not see ways in which the implied goals of the YWCA's mission statement could be applied to this program. Most staff felt that they could only work within the power structures already in place. This was evidenced by the nature of the changes suggested by the service providers, which did not extend beyond the scope of the pre-existing structures and relationships. Largely, the service providers could not conceive of any changes that would require reforming the program or their power base.

One of the recommendations of my study called for the participants to determine their own interests and needs as they progressed through the program. Although this was an obvious recommendation and in keeping with FAR, it was not embraced by the service providers nor was it deemed valuable. However, mandating participant representation at all levels of decision-making would enable the provision of more meaningful YWCA services to its consumers. By envisioning the participants as the "producers" or providers of their services, and by becoming truly woman-centred through broad-based participation and through the recognition of sexuality, ethnicity and language differences, the YWCA would then be more closely fulfilling its mission towards empowering women. I deemed that an organic and participatory woman-centred approach to service delivery was an important step towards refraining the organizational structure and practices of the YWCA. Since the women involved with the YWCA differed considerably both in the me anings they brought to their participation and of themselves as women, service provision needs to be sensitive to these differences based on class, age, race, ethnicity, lifestyle choices and privilege. Services cannot be meaningful until and unless they are grounded in woman-centred conceptual and practical strategies.

Lather (1991) contends that an initial step is to develop a worldview of research participants and a dialogic research design where respondents are actively involved in the construction and validation of meaning. The research participants can then contribute towards their own emancipatory change, while uncovering new and meaningful forms of service delivery. As well, service providers working with a group of low income single mothers could help facilitate this in the program design and implementation, collaboratively identifying opportunities and interests, and determining strategies for overcoming constraints.

Given the formal organizational structure and processes of the YWCA, I am not convinced that any research method would have enabled me to transcend the boundaries of "outsider," to collaborate more closely with the single mothers, or to dismantle the consumer-producer binary.

I found myself deeply implicated in the very class hierarchy that I was investigating through my construction of Other within the organizational setting (Lal, 1996, p.193).

Within the organizational setting, differences in privilege and power were firmly enforced and maintained. From the beginning I was inextricably tied to this power imbalance, in a role of a "have" trying to understand the realities of a "have not." Meanwhile, the traditional and inherent difference between the single mothers and the service providers was preserved.

As I reflected in my fieldnotes about my struggles and confusion throughout the research process, I came to realize that there were fundamental sites of disjuncture in my research design and data collection strategies. The YWCA's organizational setting and underlying power structures were a major impediment to a research project that aimed to apply the principles of FAR. Due to the organizational constraints, I was never able to fully challenge the label of the traditional researcher and was instead allied with the service providers who had rarely before challenged their own power base. Since the pre-employment training program caters to three different groups of women in a single year, establishing a trusting and collaborative relationship with the research participants was hindered.

The YWCA's organizational culture and the tensions that arose within generated non-collaborative forms of service delivery. By neglecting to engage in collaborative decision-making processes, the participants were involved in a service whose structures were hierarchical and class-based, reproducing many of the oppressive features of traditional organizational arrangements (Pedersen, 1986). The application of FAR within this setting proved to be problematic and frustrating. Despite the organizational constraints, my research experiences caused me to question FAR's expectations. I believed that unless the unique and individual realities of the women involved with the research were discussed and explored, then the characterizations of this "problem group" as victims of their circumstances would ensue, and potentially non-meaningful services and research methods would result. I still believe that FAR's premises offer insight and direction for researchers working within an organized setting and can potentially be a useful explanatory and methodological framework. However, the successful application of feminist action research may be problematic in more organized and traditional contexts. Nonetheless, when embarking on any research project it is essential to fully understand the dynamics of the research setting and to recognize the organizational and social arrangements within which the research takes place.

Power hierarchies in the research process: implications for collaboration and empowerment

A contentious issue in FAR writing and research involves the notion of power. Power is a social reality that underscores daily interactions and motivations, and is an inescapable and insidious component of all relationships. Power dynamics surfaced in all interactions and through all phases of the research. At times, they were difficult to recognize, subversive and complex, and were in conflict with the research ideals of collaboration and empowerment. In many cases, power has received cursory attention from feminist researchers, and its depth and pervasiveness have not been adequately defined or discussed. An ongoing challenge for feminist researchers is to recognize the complexity of power and the multitude of ways in which it can be expressed. Through this awareness and insight we must continue to contribute to feminist counter-hegemonic discourse.

As feminist researchers one of our roles is to translate between the private world of women and the public world of academia, politics and policy. The dilemma remains of how we do this without reinforcing the stereotypes and cultural constructions we are challenging (Standing, 1998, p. 193).

Lather, among others, acknowledges that research that aims to "emancipate" people may unintentionally perpetuate the very structures it hopes to challenge (Lather, 1991; Tom, 1996). As socially conscious researchers we must ensure that we are not unwittingly reproducing what we seek to undermine.

Elites tend to construct cultural practices that protect their privileged position and conserve inequality (Mannheim, 1936, cited in Frye, 1992). This can occur between any group of women or men. The YWCA service providers' relative power over the women involved in the research and in the employment training program remained intact despite my recommendations. Unfortunately this perpetuated misunderstandings about the low income single mothers' realities and constraints that potentially resulted in service delivery that did not meet the real needs of the participants. However, more subversive was the conflicted position in which I found myself striving, albeit unsuccessfully, to transform unequal social arrangements.

There is a dilemma inherent in moving from being a participant in the research relationship to being in a position of power to translate and interpret (Standing, 1998). I recognized this dilemma, which has now come full circle as the result of my involvement in writing this critique of my experiences with a feminist action research process. My actions and involvement in the research have become the object of my "gaze," or the subject of my scrutiny.

For a first-time fieldworker, self-consciousness about our (trained) tendencies to represent the Other comes quickly, and it is a self-consciousness we must strive bard not to let subside once we return from the field into that other field of representation -- the academy -- because it is in the academy that we feel the pressure to reproduce colonizing discourses on the Other most strenuously (Lal, 1996, p.192).

Although feminists are "moved by commitments to women" (Wolf, 1996), several of the dilemmas in fieldwork that revolve around power display contradictory, difficult and irreconcilable positions for the feminist researcher. How knowledge is created and who retains control over the process "remains one of the weakest links in feminist research" (Maguire, 1987, p. 35). Power is perpetuated by feminist scholars tending to maintain control over the research agenda, the research process and the results. Power and privilege are fluid, contextual, and changing. This dynamic social force can easily elude the researcher and unwittingly become integral to her research design and subsequent success as an academic feminist researcher. Although feminist action research attempts to deal with the power exerted by the researcher in the field, it remains a difficult and conflicted position and one that must constantly be checked and evaluated.

This is the inescapable nature of dominance; in reality the Western researcher is inescapably at the center of the research account. (Edwards and Ribbens, 1998, p. 3)

Wolf (1996) explores unequal hierarchies or levels of control that are maintained, perpetuated, created or re-created through differences in power. Power differences are exerted from different positions of the researcher and the researched regarding class, race, nationality, life chances, sexual orientation, urban-rural location and age. Certainly, power differences existed between myself as the researcher and the low income single mothers. Poverty and its pervasive consequences imposed major constraints on the single mothers. The single mothers' reference points hinged on their experiences of living in poverty, thus shaping their realities and framing their understandings of social assistance, discrimination, stereotypes, social isolation and employment. They were primarily concerned with parenting, financial survival, mothering, transportation and childcare. I am a white, middle class graduate student who has been in university for 10 years and has never experienced living in poverty or raising a child. Cle arly, I had little in common with the low income single mothers. Due to these immediately visible differences, upon entering the research site I was positioned as an "outsider" in the eyes of the research participants, and was more closely associated with the service providers, most of whom had university degrees and were financially secure. Although the service providers dealt with issues around funding constraints, job security, being overworked, and anxiety about their employment, it was evident to all of the women involved in my research that I was more similar to the service providers in terms of class, race, education and privilege.

The research position often places the researcher in an overtly powerful position vis-a-vis research subjects, and this inequality is exacerbated by the researcher's often necessary relationship with access providers who may have control over other research subjects (Lal, 1996, p.193).

Indeed, it became necessary to discuss the logistics of my research with the service providers, which in turn led to their acting as gatekeepers of my involvement with the YWCA. Gaining access to the YWCA and initiating contact through the service providers heightened the single mothers' awareness of my power, control and privileged position in the research process.

Wolf (1996) asserts that power exerted during the research process, such as defining the research relationship, leads to unequal exchange and exploitation. Throughout the research process, I was concerned about the limitations of the project design and the restrictions for praxis. Theoretically, a feminist action research project requires the collaborative initiation of the research participants in a non-structured setting, though it has been disputed that such active involvement in the initiation of a project rarely occurs.

Feminism [within the U.S.] has never originated among the women who are most oppressed by sexism, "women who are daily beaten down, mentally, physically, and spiritually -- women who are power-less to change their condition in life." The fact that those most victimized are least likely to question or protest this is a consequence of their victimization (hooks, 1984, p.1).

Regardless, the practice of FAR demands time for investigation, sharing and trust-building, which is often a limitation for many researchers. As well, the coordination of a FAR research project requires the energy and resources to fully explore the issues and to develop collaboratively any strategies for emancipatory change (Reid, 1997; Maguire, 1987).

As I became more immersed in my research I began to question FAR's assumption that collaboration and negotiation were possible in a structured organizational setting. My location as a relatively privileged and educated researcher coupled with the limitations imposed by the research site became increasingly problematic. The growing awareness of my power challenged me to consistently document my assumptions and to confront the issue of voice appropriation. In one particular instance I was touched by a woman who asked me to "be their voice" (YWCA program participant, October 1996). Theoretically, however, feminist action research "hears the diversity of women's voices and experiences" (Reinharz, 1992). In the fully collaborative environment endorsed by FAR, the women participants should find their own voice and not require the authority of a researcher to explain their lived realities.

I considered the woman's request to "be their voice" seriously. I concluded that my location within the research process contributed to the participants' conception of me as "the authority" (hooks, 1989), thus perpetuating their silence and maintaining inequitable power relations which prevented the participants from challenging my interpretations. This suspicion was confirmed when I conducted a "validation focus group" with the women in order to substantiate or modify my preliminary data analysis. After receiving little feedback and no recommendations for change from the women, I realized that it is difficult for those who have experienced very little power or empowerment to challenge the researcher's interpretations, and by extension, authority.

However, it is difficult to fully understand the nature of the women's silence. It is possible that they believed my analysis to be valid. Or, what if the research project was not a priority for them and they had felt little investment in it from the beginning? It remains difficult to distinguish the basis for the women's assertion that I could "be their voice."

Empowerment is a fundamental and requisite aspect of collaboration that informed my research methods and analysis. The word "empowerment" was commonly used by the service providers and was written throughout YWCA documents and literature. Labonte (1994) states that empowerment traditionally denotes "bestowing power on others, an enabling act." Through my involvement with the YWCA curriculum-based program, it became evident that the service providers "taught" empowerment, while the participants were the "recipients of professional actions" (Labonte, 1994) and remained consumers throughout their involvement with the program. This is problematic when one considers that empowerment is a process one undertakes for oneself; it is not something done "to" or "for" someone (Lather, 1991, p. 2).

From a feminist perspective, empowerment affirms people's right to be listened to and understood, helping them to obtain new perspectives on their situations and encouraging them to take action for themselves (Frisby, Crawford and Dorer, 1997). Only in interacting with others do people gain the characteristics essential to empowerment: control, capacity, coherence, connectedness, and critical thinking or conscientization (Labonte, 1994; Freire, 1996). However, as a researcher working with marginalized women and tackling issues surrounding unequal power, collaboration, and empowerment, it is essential to find a balance between empowering strategies versus blaming the victim for "her" problems. Placing all of the impetus for disclosure and change on the informants infers that it is "their" problem and that they should be entirely responsible for mobilizing and improving their situation. If disempowered women are called upon to take primary responsibility for sharing experiences, the burden of accountability is taken away from white privileged women and placed solely on the powerless women (hooks, 1986). Conversely, if collaboration is not pursued one risks becoming the authority while the voices of the informants remain unheard. Empowerment, as Lather (1991) cites, means not only providing accessible services, but also a means of analyzing ideas about the causes of powerlessness, recognizing systemic oppressive forces, and acting both individually and collectively to change the conditions of our lives (Bookman and Morgan, 1988; Shapiro, 1989; cited in Lather, 1991).

Women's diversity obscured? The pitfalls of false unity and false difference

As I progressed through my data collection and gathered impressions and recommendations from both the single mothers and the service providers, I realized that I had positioned the single mothers and the service providers as opposing binaries. Initially, the participants were situated as one group with specific and unified insights, experiences and observations, while the YWCA service providers were delineated as a separate and opposing group. Through this positioning the inference and expectation was that within each group there were shared opinions towards service delivery and consumption. Despite advocating FAR's premise of recognizing women's diversity, I subconsciously adopted the organizational delineations between consumers and providers of services, and unwittingly conducted my research from that perspective. However, as Martin suggests, "paradoxically, our acts of unmasking the differences among women and reveling in them [can become] occasions for imposing false unity on our research" (Martin, 1994, p. 631). Indeed the single mothers and the service providers represented diverse backgrounds, interests, and experiences, and as some of the women disclosed personal information regarding marital status, sexual orientation, ethnic background, and life experience, the diversity within each group became increasingly apparent. Martin (1994) suggests that any naming or categorizing tends to call attention to the similarities and to neglect differences. The overt status differences between the single mothers and the service providers set up binaries of location, experience and expertise, falsely differentiating them and rendering it difficult to tease out individual differences throughout the data collection and analysis phases.

My positioning of the research participants risked losing the identity of the individual women to the interests of the group she represented. Subsequently, it was possible to falsely assume that "the group" was capable of and indeed desired lobbying towards a unified set of goals. Representing a group versus an individual, and overlooking difference within a group, also risked perpetuating stereotypes and misconceptions about that group. Hierarchies may then be created in confronting differences of any fixed binary opposition (Scott, 1988). Israel et al. (1994) suggest that we should use a "wide-angled lens" to guide our thinking and action to view the diverse people and situations with whom we are working. After recognizing my conceptualization of the binaries, I attempted to portray the diversity of voices through thoughtful and constant evaluation while, at the same time, allowing my own analysis to emerge. As well, through the research process and many informal conversations, loyalties and friendships ar ose. While documenting my experiences as the researcher, I often remarked when I felt allegiances or special bonds with the women and reflected on how such an occurrence affected my experiences and interpretations.

However, despite my recognition of the binaries between the service providers and the single mothers, through this discussion they continued to occupy these locations. At the very least it was essential to remember the differences and similarities in the voices expressed by the research participants, the service providers and myself because of the "politics of domination" that characterize how research has traditionally been conducted (hooks, 1986). I struggled with issues of anonymity, collaboration, sharing, diversity and confidentiality while acknowledging that these issues were deeply complex and that resolutions were seldom possible.

Enlightenment: The Realities of Feminist Action Research

As one reads FAR literature, there is the expectation that a FAR methodology, if applied "correctly," will accomplish collaborative relationships and emancipatory change. This can be additionally misleading and improbable for a feminist researcher. What I failed to understand prior to my research was that a feminist methodology cannot be prescribed, and in assuming there is a singular methodology rests an inherent contradiction. There has been resistance to a rigid, dogmatic "correct" feminist methodology, because when one approach becomes hegemonic this reinforces domination arid limits knowledge (Cancian, 1991, p. 629). In fact, Tom (1996) states that,

...if we do not make a conscious commitment to emergent and changing research design, we run the risk that collaborative-looking actions will be mistaken for genuine collaboration with the consequence that opportunities for collaboration will be missed. (Tom, 1996, p. 358)

Mies (1991) argues for feminist research that is action-oriented, calling on researchers to get involved and engaged in "struggles for women's emancipation" (p.124). Although this is an ideal of feminist action research, the perpetuation of power imbalances within the research process made the realization of women's emancipation more problematic. Through the application of FAR, I strove to level the power relations between myself as the researcher, the service providers and the single mothers. However, a clear delineation between the service providers and the program participants was enforced through the YWCA's curriculum-based approach, and this highly structured environment made the exploration and implementation of emancipatory change more difficult and unlikely. Perhaps the goal of FAR should be to understand power relations in all their complexity, rather than an unrealistic leveling of power relations in an organized setting.

Towards feminist values in action

Although feminist researchers may use methods that give the research subjects more power, it is not clear how successful they can be (Cancian, 1991). However equal the methods of access and interviewing, we, as researchers, still hold the real power when we take the women's private words into the public world of academia (Wolf, 1996). Activist or action-research demands that the researchers give up some of these controls and share them with others. Maguire (1987) suggests that academic feminists have tended to maintain control over research projects and knowledge creation as have conventional non-feminist researchers, and that both rarely empower the women they study. Foucault (1977) goes as far as to state that "there is no possibility for knowledge creation outside of societal power structures." It is the ways in which we represent and interpret the women's voices which reinforce hierarchies of knowledge and power (Standing, 1998). By maintaining this control and distance, most feminist research ends up ben efiting the scholar more than those studied, thus furthering the gap between the researcher and the researched. This behaviour undercuts some of the goals set forth by feminist researchers and reproduces aspects of traditional academic research.

Wolf (1996) writes about the "dual allegiances" faced by the feminist researchers working within an academic setting. As a feminist researcher I am obligated to my academic discipline and institution within which I have to succeed if I am to have any impact on the academy: "Feminism is an encounter that unfortunately was, and sadly continues to be, primarily defined through academic debates and theories" (Lal, 1996, p.191). However, within this there is an inherent contradiction. Feminism is committed to a transformative politics.

As a committed feminist researcher it is essential for me to continually question the production of knowledge, the politics surrounding this process, and issues involving collaboration, negotiation, voice and power. One's position in the social hierarchy vis-a-vis other groups potentially "limits or broadens" ones understanding of others (Wolf, 1996). Frye (1992) suggests that there is a feminist "urgency" to be engaged with the greatest possible range of perceivers and theorizers, and that this must be built into our situation and our methodology (p.42).

Throughout the process of my research I struggled with issues central to feminist debates today. These ongoing problematics present feminist researchers with unresolved struggles and continuous challenges. Fine and Weis (1996) articulate the lofty goals we have set for ourselves as feminist scholars:

We are trying to work the hyphens of theory and research, policy and practice, Whitenesses and multiracial coalitinos...[W]e are trying to build theory, contextualize policy, pour much back into community work, and help to raise the next generation of progressive, multiracial/ethnic scholars. (Fine and Weis, 1996, p. 271)

It is important to hold high standards for our work and the work of others, though we must more openly embrace the accomplishments of our feminist colleagues and question seemingly insurmountable expectations that we place upon ourselves as feminist researchers. Martin (1994) offers an illuminating and positive vision for feminist researchers that reinvigorates the ultimate goals of feminist action research:

My vision is of a collective enterprise of a research community governed by an open welcoming spirit, one that is inclusionary on the methodological level as on the personal. It is of people who hold high standards of themselves and others but do not demand perfection (p.654).

Despite limitations imposed by power positions and control over the production of knowledge, FAR remains a viable methodology if we remain mindful of its various limitations. Feminist researchers must work at the hyphen -- "coming clean" -- and interrogate in our writings who we are as we co-produce the narratives we presume to collect (Fine and Weis, 1996, p. 263). We need to produce for ourselves our own social and collective forms of self-representation, in order to modify dominant patriarchal forms of representation, and to "make visible a different alternative, social and cultural order within which to define our identity and subjectivity" (Edwards and Ribbens, 1998, p. 13). We need high standards of reflexivity and openness about the choices made throughout any empirical study, considering the implications of practical choices for the knowledge being produced (Edwards and Ribbens, 1998).

We have a responsibility to talk about our own identities, why we interrogate what we do, what we choose not to report, on whom we train our scholarly gaze, who is protected and not protected as we do our work. (Fine and Weis, 1996, p.264)

Positivist science is based on the tenet of value-free objectivity that can, should, and must be attained by the scientist or social scientist in order to seek and uncover "the truth." "The historically dominant 'western' manmade world-story claims universality and objectivity but, from the point of view of feminists, conspicuously lacks both" (Frye, 1996, p. 35). As well, positivist scientists assume that research must be completely replicable by others. Conversely, feminist research is contextual, inclusive, experiential, involved, and socially relative (Wolf, 1996). It is complete but not necessarily replicable and is inclusive of emotions and events experienced. Do feminist action-research projects result in empowerment or meaningful political change? Or perhaps the more appropriate question is whether these projects have brought us farther along than other methods? (Wolf, 1996). I believe that they have, and the premises upon which feminist action research is based offer an alternative and promising app roach to research.

This paper began as an attempt to make sense of my experiences with the application of FAR and to come to terms with the strengths and limitations of my project. My perspective evolved as I moved from my selection of FAR, to my frustration with the research process, finally arriving at greater clarity at identifying some of FAR's problematics. The complexities involved in representation, speaking about and across difference, power imbalances in the research process, collaboration, empowerment, and striving for emancipatory change are ongoing issues for feminist researchers. The contested spheres of theory and practice are continually changing and adapthag, although some unity between them is essential for the "politicization" of experience (Hargreaves, 1990, p.83). While my study helped me to identify some piftalls within FAR, it is important to continue working towards feminist research ideals, devising alternative approaches to research while remaining aware of the assumptions inherent in FAR's principles. Unless we honestly and openly develop these alternate and emergent approaches, our commitment to equality will be overwhelmed by the hierarchy and elitism of the university (Cancian, 1991).

I initiated my research armed with the idealistic intentions of feminist action research and did not realize that it is essential to be critical of the promises of any theory, epistemology, methodology or research method. Simply because I believed in feminist politics and theory did not mean that my methods were beyond question -- feminist researchers must always work reflexively, documenting our world views, ideologies, assumptions, biases, and relationships with others. Just as we research others we must research and question ourselves and understand our relative power and privilege in all stages of the research process.

It is desirable and possible to increase the self-consciousness of our work, to remain critical and careful of the promises of any research methodology, while embracing the achievements of others. As we continue to work reflexively, we are increasingly becoming aware of some of the pitfalls in the promises of feminist action research. It is important to realistically approach one's research, while ensuring that the notions of collaboration, empowerment and emancipatory change are explicitly defined and understood in relation to the fieldwork experiences of other feminist action researchers. As well, feminist researchers should foster a sharing and learning environment for everyone involved in the research community, and negotiate the expectations implicit in the research design. Indeed, feminist researchers are among the few who articulate commitments and political priorities that invoke a "better model of human behaviour that is as yet nowhere to be found" (Patai, 1991, p. 137). However, it is my hope for t he continual evolution of feminist action research through women's honest, insightful and progressive involvement and interaction.

Epilogue

I wrote this paper three years ago based on my expectations, experiences, and frustrations with feminist action research. I am now a third year doctoral candidate conducting data collection for my dissertation. In part I am humbled by my naivete in this text, and my apparent seduction by FAR's "promises." Nonetheless, a paper that aims to openly reflect on the experiences of an idealistic, first-time feminist research can be an important contribution. My continued work in feminist action research makes me realize that I would now approach this work differently. There is no "pure" place for FAR to occur, and there is no place where relations of inequality do not exist. I would read through the magical rhetoric of FAR and begin with more concrete and workable definitions of collaboration, participation, and social change. Indeed I arrived at these realizations after three years of experience. However, whether we have 30 years of fieldwork experience or are new to feminist theory and methods, it is important for feminist researchers at all stages to attempt this critical and challenging work. The ongoing reflexive and honest representations of our research will contribute to the growth and development of feminist scholarship and praxis.

Colleen Reid is a doctoral candidate in Interdisciplinary Studies in Health Promotion Research at the University of British Columbia. Her areas of interest include women's studies, health promotion and education. For the past 7 years, she has worked with organizations such as the BC Centre of Excellence for Women's Health, the Vancouver YWCA, AIDS Vancouver, Literacy BC and the Institute of Health Promotion Research.

Note

(1.) I am grateful to Allison Tom for her comments and suggestions in writing this paper, and thank her for her insight and encouragement.

References

Bernard, H.R. Research Methods in Anthropology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc., 1994.

Cancian, Francesca M. "Feminist Science: Methodologies that Challenge Inequality." Gender and Society, vol. 6, no. 4(1991), pp. 623-642.

Clarke, J.N. "Feminist Methods in Health Promotion Research." Canadian Journal of Public Health, vol. 83, Suppl. 1 (1992), pp. 54-57.

Edwards, Rosalind and Jane Ribbens. "Living on the Edges: Public Knowledge, Private Lives, Personal Experience," in R. Edwards and J. Ribbens, eds. Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research: Public Knowledges and Private Lives. London: Sage Publications, 1998, pp. 1-17.

Fine, Michelle and Lois Weis. "Writing the "Wrongs" of Fieldwork: Confronting Our Own Research/Writing Dilemmas in Urban Ethnographies." Qualitative Inquiry vol. 2, no. 3 (1996), pp. 25 1-274.

Flax, Jane. "Women Do Theory" in Feminist Frameworks, 3rd Ed., A.M. Jaggar and P.S. Rothenberg, eds. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1993, pp. 80-85.

Foucault, Michel. "The Political Function of the Intellectual." Radical Philosophy vol. 17 (1977), pp. 12-14.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1996.

Frisby, Wendy, Susan Crawford and Theresa Dorer. "Reflections on Participatory Action Research: The Case Study of Low-income Women Accessing Local Physical Activity Services." Journal of Sport Management, vol. 11, no. 1(1997), pp. 8-28.

Frye, Marilyn. "The Possibility of Feminist Theory," in Women, Knowledge and Reality: Explorations in Feminist Philosophy, A. Garry and M Pearsall, eds. London: Routledge, (1992), pp. 34-47.

Green, Lawrence W., M. Anne George, Mark Daniel, C.Jarnes Frankish, Carol J. Herbert, William R. Bowie and Michel O'Neill. The Royal Society of Canada Study of Participatory Research in Health Promotion -- Review and Recommendations for the Development of Participatory research in Health Promotion in Canada, 1995.

Guba, Egon G. and Yvonne S. Lincoln. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1989.

Hall, Budd. "Introduction," in Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada, P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall and T. Jackson, eds. London: Bergin & Garvey, (1993), pp. xiii-xxii.

Hargreaves, Jennifer A. "Gender on the Sports Agenda." International Review for the Sociology of Sport; vol. 25, no. 4 (1990), pp. 287-308.

Henderson, Karla A., M. Deborah Bialeschki, S.M. Shaw and V.J. Freysinger. A Leisure of 0ne's Own: A Feminist Perspective on Women's Leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc., 1989.

hooks, bell. Talking Back: Thinking Feminist; Thinking Black. Toronto: Between the Lines, 1989.

_____. "Sisterhood: Political Solidarity Between Women." Feminist Review, vol. 23 (1986), pp. 125-138.

_____. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston: South End Press, 1984.

Israel, Barbara A., Barry Checkoway, Amy Schultz and Marc Zimmerman. "Health Education and Community Empowerment: Conceptualizing and Measuring Perceptions of Individual, Organization and Community Control." Health Education Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2 (1994), pp. 149-170.

Labonte, Ronald. "Health Promotion and Empowerment: Reflections on Professional Practice." Health Education Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2 (1994), pp. 253-268.

Lal, Jaynti. "Situating Locations: The Politics of Self, Identity and "Other" in Living and Writing Text," in Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork, D.L. Wolf, ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press Inc., (1996), pp. 185-214.

Lather, Patti. Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy With/in the Postmodem. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, 1991.

_____. "Feminist Perspectives on Empowering Research Methodologies." Women's Studies International Forum, vol. 11, no. 6 (1988), pp. 569-581.

Maguire, Patricia. Doing Participatory Research. Amherst, MA: The Center for International Education, University of Massachusetts, 1987.

Martin, Jane Roland. "Methodological Essentialism, False Difference, and Other Dangerous Traps." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, vol. 19, no. 3 (1994), pp. 630-657.

Mies, Maria. "Women's Research or Feminist Research? The Debate Surrounding Feminist Science and Methodology," in Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lives Experience, M.M. Fonow and J.A. Cook, eds. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991, pp. 60-84.

Patai, Daphne. "U.S. Academics and Third World Women: Is Ethical Research Possible?" in Women's Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History, S.B. Gluck and D. Patai, eds. New York: Routledge, 1991, pp. 137-153.

Pedersen, D. "Keeping Our Good Girls Good": The YWCA and the 'Girl Problem', 1870-1930. Canadian Women's Studies, vol. 7, no. 4 (1986), pp. 20-24.

Reid, Colleen. Women Organizing for Women: Disjunctures in the Consumption and Provision of Health and Wellness Services for Single Mothers. Unpublished thesis submitted to the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, May 1997.

Reinharz, Shulamit. Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Roman, Leslie G. and Michael W. Apple. "Is Naturalism a Move Away from Positivism?" in Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate, E.W. Eisner and A. Reddin, eds. New York: Teachers College, 1990, pp. 38-73.

Scott, Joan. "Deconstructing Equality-versus-Difference; or, The Uses of Post-structuralist Theory for Feminism," Feminist Studies, vol. 14 (1988), pp. 33-50.

Smith, Dorothy E. The Everyday World as Problematic -- A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1987.

Standing, K. "Writing the Voices of the Less Powerful: Research on Lone Mothers," in Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research: Public Knowledge and Private Lives. J. Ribbens and R. Edwards, eds. London: Sage Publications, 1988, pp. 168-198.

Tom, Allison. "Building Collaborative Research: Living the Commitment to Emergent Design." Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 9, no. 3 (1996), pp. 347-359.

Vertinsky, Patricia. "The Social Construction of the Gendered Body: Exercise and the Exercise of Power." The International Journal of the History of Sport, vol. 11, no. 2 (1994), pp. 147-171.

West, Candace and Sarah Fenstermaker. "Doing Difference." Gender and Society, vol. 9, no. 1 (1995), pp. 8-37.

Wolf, Diane L. "Situating Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork," in Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork, D.L. Wolf, ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press Inc., 1996, pp. 1-55.