483568

research-article2013

JCE42410.1177/0891241613483568Journal of Contemporary EthnographySchrock and Koontz Anthony

Commentary

Diversifying Feminist
Ethnographers
Dilemmas and Solutions

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography

42(4) 482491
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0891241613483568
jce.sagepub.com

Douglas Schrock1 and Amanda Koontz Anthony2

Keywords
Feminism, methods, ethnography

Avishai, Gerber, and Randles (2013a, 394) describe the feminist dilemma as
arising when established feminist analytic frameworks clash with observations. All three felt this dilemma when conducting research on groups commonly thought to be conservative or nonfeminist. They felt unable to
reconcile what they imagined was the feminist imperative to privilege the
voice of participants with their stated feminist political commitments. In spite
of their expectations of male dominance and support of a patriarchal system
in the field, they interpreted some of their observations as reflecting feminist
ideals. However, they were uncomfortable drawing such conclusions, as they
felt pressure to conform to an institutionalized orthodoxy of feminist thought.
As self-identified feminists, they worried how other feminists would evaluate
their work. To help better navigate this dilemma, the authors encourage
institutional reflexivity, or critical reflection of how feminist theoretical
and methodological orthodoxies constrain and enable interpretations of the
world. They also encourage feminists to privilege their analytic interpretations over their political projects when this dilemma arises.
By introducing the notions of the feminist dilemma and institutional
reflexivity, the authors provide a language to interrogate not only the issues
1Florida

State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

2University

Corresponding Author:
Douglas Schrock, Department of Sociology, Florida State University, 526 Bellamy Building,
Tallahassee, FL 32306-2270, USA.
Email: dschrock@fsu.edu

Downloaded from jce.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 18, 2015

Schrock and Koontz Anthony

483

as framed, but, with JCEs help, open up a dialogue. In the spirit of institutional reflexivity, let us explore some issues that arose as we reflected upon
their provocative article. We first address how more fully integrating the
diversity of feminism multiplies such dilemmas to an almost incalculable
amount. We then examine how coming to terms with the diversity of feminism may point to other strategies for navigating such dilemmas. In doing so,
we also aim to show how personal reflexivity, which transcends reflecting on
field relations, cannot be separated from understanding the nature of the
dilemmas or how we might attempt to resolve them. Although we commend
the authors for discussing a real and generally unspoken dilemma, and share
their belief that our data and theorizing must be tightly linked, we worry that
following the authors advice for separating feminisms analytic and political
projects may dilute, if not dissolve, feminist ethnography.

Diversifying Dilemmas
While the authors acknowledge different feminist approaches, especially
when discussing how women of color have challenged feminism as produced
from the perspectives of elite white women, what might happen if we take
into account more fully the diversity of feminism? Let us answer this by
addressing feminists (1) diverse alliances with other marginalized groups;
(2) adoption of varied genres of feminism; and (3) favored micro and midlevel interpretative frameworks. In doing so, we highlight how personal and
institutional reflexivity are linked, and that there is no single feminist orthodoxy, and no single dilemma. Our discussion is influenced by symbolic interactionism, which shares with much feminism a distaste for dualisms (e.g.,
Collins 1990).
Although many feminists might predict that conservative groups are patriarchal playgrounds, there is much disagreement about how an ethnographer
can best gather and interpret data, regardless of whether it conforms to initial
expectations. For example, if one neglects to analyze race or class, one might
be burdened with shame if perceiving intersectional feminists as judgmental
(see, e.g., Cooley 1902 on the looking glass self). If this is the case, then
one may face countless dilemmas because of the many ways feminist theories
and theorists may be differentially allied with the poor, the differently abled,
the young or elderly, sexual minorities, the politically exiled or undocumented, etc. The number of dilemmas the institutionally reflexive ethnographer faces may thus be limited only to the degree she or he can bracket the
suffering of particular groups from others. In this way, personal reflexivity of
the traditional looking glass variety is intertwined with feminists political
and analytic projects.

Downloaded from jce.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 18, 2015

484

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 42(4)

What counts as suffering and the desired route to liberation, of course,

depends on how much scholars lean toward or adopt other broader perspectives, such as socialist, radical, liberal, eco-, or anarcho-feminism, in all their
nuanced variations. These often-tacit varieties of feminism are typically part
of our self-concepts and how we reflexively take the perspectives of valued
audiences. If one ethnographer defines herself or himself as a radical feminist
but cannot interpret data in a way that fits with the broad framework, she or
he likely faces a different kind of dilemma than would an eco-feminist working with the same data. The dilemmas are colored by what version of feminist
identity is most personally salient (Stryker 1969), which is also linked to
how we reflexively judge ourselves in terms of our most valued reference
groups (Shibutani 1955). In addition, imagining how differently self-defined
feminists might evaluate our work can also multiply the dilemmas. As a
result, the knapsack of dilemmas that conscientious fieldworkers lug
around is likely to weigh so much that it is a wonder we ever make it to the
keyboard to type up notes.
Because feminists develop and use other common interpretative frameworks, along with more general and traditionally established theoretical perspectives (see, e.g., Nielson 1990; Roberts 1981; Stacey 1988; Wolf 1996),
calculating the number of dilemmas feminist ethnographers face may require
the help of our comrades in demography. For example, because reality is
multiperspectivial (James 1890), different feminist ethnographers may very
well interpret the same interactional exchange as conversational work, emotion management, identity work, doing gender, framing, ad infinitum. And, if
an institutionally reflective ethnographer interprets such an exchange as identity work rather than emotion management, she or he may, for example, be
haunted by an image of Arlie Hochschild scribbling in the manuscripts margins. Furthermore, feminism has been incorporated into and developed by
not only postmodern and postcolonial theories, as the authors mention, but
also ethnographer-friendly varieties of ethnomethodology, psychoanalytic
sociology, symbolic interactionism, dramaturgy, existentialism, phenomenology, structuration, and so forth. Reflexive feminist ethnographers may face
more dilemmas than a sweet-toothed procrastinator in a convenience store.
Let us say more with regard to basic interpretive lenses through which we
frame qualitative data, especially with regard to research participants talk.
The authors argue that privileging our subjects worldviews and voices is
a feminist methodological imperative that should take precedence over political commitments. Although we agreeas do all ethnographic textbooks we
know ofthat we should not coerce data into a preexisting framework, we do
not advocate privileging participant voices at the expense of political analysis.
Doing so cuts off the possibility of analyzing talk as action (Kleinman 2007)

Downloaded from jce.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 18, 2015

Schrock and Koontz Anthony

485

that reproduces and/or challenges sexism. What is required is an analysis of

talk rather than an assumption that honoring and respecting participants talk
(and worldview) is in itself feminist. In fact, privileging the worldview of
some participants may very well amount to going patriarchal.
Take, for example, Scully and Marollas (1984) classic research on rapists accounts, which they interpreted as rapists drawing on the larger culture to justify and excuse their sexual violence against women. Were they
unfeminist because they refused to privilege rapists worldview over their
feminist politics? To the contrary, their analytic project was political and
empirically rigorous and changed how many feminists understand and
study language. Beyond this, it brought feminism to those studying accounts
and challenged the dominant individualist paradigm that constructed rapists
as suffering from psychopathology. Their study has introduced cohort after
cohort of undergraduates to the power of feminist analyses of talk and the
idea that common stereotypes of women are symbolic resources that men
use to allow them to commit rape in the first place. Feminism, as well as
social science, was advanced not because they jettisoned their politics
because it clashed with privileging interviewees worldviews. Rather, their
contributions depended on taking those interviewees talk as something to
be analyzed from a perspective that understands sexual violence as key to
the oppression of women. Feminism was the savior, not the foil of their
empirical research.
Although we disagree that a feminist orthodoxy exists and that a feminist
ethnographer should privilege research participants worldview, we do agree
that one approach, in a specific area of research, may enjoy a long stretch at
the top of the paradigmatic charts. In other words, an established cadre of
feminists might hold a particular analytic framework in such high regard that
it becomes dominant in certain domains (e.g., journals, subfields, networks).
For example, there may be a dominant framework about how to frame
research about a specific group (e.g., Israeli orthodox Jewish women),
broader social groups (e.g., men), or a certain substantive area (e.g., religion
and gender). Take, for example, Connell and followers approach to studying
men; the 7,208 citations (according to Google Scholar) of Connells (1995)
Masculinties can make it seem like the only discursive game in town. We thus
agree with the authors wholeheartedly that under such conditions, ethnographers writing about a certain group may feel rather uneasy if they do not
believe it is appropriate to utilize a dominant framework. We ourselves have
struggled with this in our own research and theorizing on men. But even in
such dire straits, one might find that the same thing that multiplies dilemmas
the diversity of feminismcan aid in resolving them and advancing feminist
ethnography.

Downloaded from jce.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 18, 2015

486

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 42(4)

Diversifying Solutions
How might ethnographers navigate a feminist dilemma and remain faithful
to obdurate reality (Blumer 1969)? Avishai, Gerber, and Randles (2013a,
419420) conclude that, in order to produce valid research, feminists should
be cognizant of the tension between feminisms dual agendas as a political
and analytical project and how the former must cede to the latter. There may
be multiple readings of this statement, especially if we consider it in light of
others the authors made. Considering the definition of the dilemma given to
us in the abstractwhen feminist analytic perspectives clash with observationsone interpretation is that they are urging feminist ethnographers to
allow what they see in the field to shape analyses, rather than being blinded
by ideology. Navigating such a dilemma may require little more than putting
to use ones training in ethnographic methods, especially with regard to generating an inductive analysis grounded in the empirical world. The authors
mention in passing that grounded theory helped solve their dilemmaslet us
add that following sound advice in qualitative guidebooks (e.g., Charmaz
2006; Kleinman and Copp 1993; Lofland et al. 2006) may help resolve or
preempt them. Such lessons include making explicit ones initial assumptions
about the group being studied, reflecting on ones own emotions, regularly
writing analytic memos to explore developing themes, searching for negative
cases and changing ones interpretations to fit them, engaging in line-by-line
and other forms of coding so that conceptualizations are always connected to
data, and so on. These strategies help to prevent ethnographers from ignoring
the empirical world in favor of their own or others expectations. They also
help feminist ethnographers to develop grounded feminist theory if they are
so committed.
A more troubling rendering of the authors aforementioned statement may
be that they are suggesting that feminist analysis can be separated from feminist politics, and feminists are biased if they conflate their political and
analytical projects. If feminist politics includes consciousness raising through
storytelling, as highlighted in the 1970s when feminism was more commonly
found in womens rap groups than academic journals (Kalcik 1975), then
what does it mean to construct a feminist analytic project without being political? Perhaps we are stuck in an old orthodoxy, but we presume that many
theories have political assumptions, and removing the politics would turn
these paradigms into something else entirely. For example, critical race theory would no longer be critical race theory if we took out the politics of racial
equality. What would feminist ethnography be if one removed the political
from its analytic agenda? The danger, as we see it, is that it may dilute feminism by relegating it to identity politics rather than maintain it as a project

Downloaded from jce.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 18, 2015

Schrock and Koontz Anthony

487

aimed at eradicating gender inequality. In other words, removing feminist

politics could turn feminist ethnography into pseudo-feminism.
Instead of diluting feminism or working on ones ethnographic chops,
engaging the diversity of feminism may be particularly helpful in addressing
the dilemmas. Let us continue by again using Connells dominant approach
to studying men. Although the sheer amount of academic discourse adopting
the language of masculinities can make it seem like an inescapable web, others have consistently pulled away its strands and offered alternative conceptualizations (see, e.g., Hearn 2004; MacInnes 1998; Martin 1998; Schrock
and Schwalbe 2009). Such critiques include that the approach is essentialist,
ambiguous, and enables a delinking of the concept of masculinity from
understanding the oppression of women. Engaging and developing the critiques and alternative approaches have enabled feminist ethnographers analyzing men to publish their work without being trapped in this masculinities
discourse (e.g., Eastman 2012; Ezzell 2012; Sumerau 2012; Vacarro, Schrock,
and McCabe 2011; Wilkins 2012). The point here is that instead of dropping
feminist politics from ethnographic analyses when the empirical world seems
obscured through one feminist lens, try to develop others until it comes into
better focus. This approach, of course, requires ethnographers to remain systematically engaged with our empirical data throughout the process.
Let us briefly consider how existing feminist frameworks may have helped
the authors differently resolve their stated dilemmas to further illustrate the
potential of institutional reflexivity. Gerbers finding that men of the exgay movement were encouraged to express vulnerability led her to contend
that they were playful rather than patriarchal. She argues that what she
found contradicted a previously published analysis that argued ex-gay men
were claiming male privilege. Our reading of her description suggests that
adopting or adapting a feminist lens that emphasizes the linkages between
sexism and the privileging of heterosexuality (see, e.g., Pharr 1988) might
have complicated her analysis. Feminist ethnography has shown that it is
possible to reproduce male privilege regardless of ones good intentions and
style of communication (Kleinman 1996). When Randles entered a marriage
promotion program, she found instructors did not emphasize marriage as
macro-oriented feminists theorized, and thus her dilemma centered on making sense of her data outside the alleged feminist orthodoxy. However, she
may have found solace in feminist theorists who argue against a macro view
of the state and advocate focusing on interactions between people inside
state-sanctioned programs (e.g., Haney 2000). In Avishais attempt to resolve
dilemmas surrounding how to make sense of orthodox Jewish womens
engagement in niddah, she focused on how the women do religion and
construct authentic religious selves, which challenged feminist critiques of

Downloaded from jce.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 18, 2015

488

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 42(4)

religious practices that regulate womens bodies. It is plausible, however,

that adopting a feminist interactionist lens would have enabled her to view
such identity work as intertwined with patriarchy (see, e.g., Kleinman 1996;
Schwalbe 1996).
The point here is not that any of these alternative feminist lenses are necessarily better than the ones the authors used to interpret their dataand we
acknowledge that they know their data better than we ever could. Rather, we
want to suggest that if previously published feminist analyses of the group one
is investigating does not resonate with ones observations in the field, then
feminist ethnographers may be able to maintain a focus on gender inequality
by trying out feminist perspectives that have been developed by theorists
addressing broader issues and ethnographers who may have focused on other
types of groups. Furthermore, it should not be surprising that one is surprised
by what one finds in the field and that participants worldviews do not resonate
with established feminist discourse. The point is to unpack seeming contradictions to find the connections. After all, it is precisely these surprises and contradictions that give us an opportunity to enrich and contribute to a kind of
knowledge and theory that challenges patriarchy. We should not expect our
participants constructions of their own lives to do such analytic work for us,
regardless of what type of ethnographer one aims to be, as here lies a serious
danger of romanticizing and/or appropriating the vision of the less powerful
while claiming to see from their position (Haraway 1988, 292). As Kleinman
and Kolb (2011, 425) point out, two of the most common traps of qualitative
analysis are becoming too attached to the research on ones specific topic and
becoming overly sympathetic towards participants.
In addition, let us briefly consider the role of personal reflexivity in resolving dilemmas. If ethnographers dilemmas, as suggested earlier, have something to do with our understanding of what kind of feminist we aim to be,
then it follows that coming to terms with our brand of feminist identity (and
by extension, our feminist politics) may help mitigate discomfort. Understand
what ones values are and become secure in them, yet allow growth as new
insights develop. It may be useful to also reflect on whether ones commitment to ones identity or brand of feminism would necessarily lead, if acting
as a reviewer or editor, to rejecting a manuscript just because the author did
not conform to your approach. Our sense is that most feminists are not so
wedded to their favored approach that they shut those using alternative
approaches out of the publishing game; most do their best to evaluate authors
on the basis of their presented arguments and data and editors and the peerreview process provides a check (albeit sometimes an imperfect one). In
addition to reflecting on ones identity, reflecting on ones own feelings while
in the field and engaging in analysis at ones desk are crucial to both

Downloaded from jce.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 18, 2015

Schrock and Koontz Anthony

489

pinpointing dilemmas in the field and developing solutions to them (see

Kleinman and Copp 1993).
In conclusion, solving feminist ethnographers dilemmas most likely
requires using the aforementioned techniques in an ongoing and recursive
fashion: stay grounded in ones data and committed to the inductive process,
sustain institutional reflexivity including reading diverse approaches to feminist theory and research, and engage in personal reflection about ones identity, emotions, and sense-making. Following such advice may not just help
resolve feminist dilemmas; it may transform ethnographers into feminists
and make their empirical work stronger. In Feminist Fieldwork Analysis,
Sherryl Kleinman (2007) argues precisely this as she recounts her transition
from a solidly trained and successful midcareer ethnographer to a feminist
ethnographer. Faced with an analysis block or difficulty in making sense of
her field observations at a holistic health center, she set the project aside for
a time. She then interrogated her twinge-o-meter or feelings of discomfort
with regard to her observations and developing analysis and began reading
feminist theory to develop a new course on race, class, and gender. When she
came back to her project, she asked new questions of her data centered on
gender inequality and, as she put it, was freed to write a story that fit the
feminist I had become (Kleinman 2007, 5).
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Daphne Holden, Patricia Yancey Martin, Jason
Eastman, and Janice McCabe for their helpful suggestions and comments.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Avishai, Orit, Lynne Gerber, and Jennifer Randles. 2013a. The Feminist
Ethnographers Dilemma: Reconciling Progressive Research Agendas with
Fieldwork Realities. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 42: 394426.
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Downloaded from jce.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 18, 2015

490

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 42(4)

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through

Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and
the Politics of Empowerment. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cooley, Charles. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Charles
Scribners Sons.
Eastman, Jason T. 2012. Rebel Manhood: The Hegemonic Masculinity of the
Southern Music Revival. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 41:189219.
Ezzell, Matthew B. 2012. Im in Control: Compensatory Manhood in a Therapeutic
Community. Gender & Society 26:190215.
Haney, Lynne. 2000. Feminist State Theory: Applications to Jurisprudence,
Criminology, and the Welfare State. Annual Review of Sociology 26:64166.
Haraway, Donna. 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism
and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14:57599.
Hearn, Jeff. 2004. From Hegemonic Masculinity to the Hegemony of Men. Feminist
Theory 5:4972.
James, William. 1890. The Principles of Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kalcik, Susan. 1975. . . . Like Anns Gynecologist or the Time I Was Almost
Raped: Personal Narratives in Womens Rap Groups. Journal of American
Folklore 88:311.
Kleinman, Sherryl. 1996. Opposing Ambitions: Gender and Identity in an Alternative
Organization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kleinman, Sherryl. 2007. Feminist Fieldwork Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kleinman, Sherryl, and Martha Copp. 1993. Emotions and Fieldwork. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Kleinman, Sherryl, and Kenneth H. Kolb. 2011. Traps on the Path of Analysis.
Symbolic Interaction 34:42546.
Lofland, John, David Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn Lofland. 2006. Analyzing
Social Settings. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
MacInnes, John. 1998. The End of Masculinity: The Confusion of Sexual Genesis and
Sexual Difference in Modern Society. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Martin, Patricia Yancey. 1998. Why Cant a Man Be More Like a Woman?
Reflections on Connells Masculinities. Gender & Society 13:47274.
Nielson, Joyce McCarl. 1990. Sex and Gender in Society: Perspectives on
Stratification. 2nd ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Pharr, Suzanne. 1988. Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism. Inverness, CA: Chardon.
Roberts, Helen. 1981. Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Schrock, Douglas, and Michael Schwalbe. 2009. Men, Masculinity, and Manhood
Acts. Annual Review of Sociology 35:27795.
Schwalbe, Michael. 1996. Unlocking the Iron Cage: The Mens Movement, Gender
Politics, and American Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Downloaded from jce.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 18, 2015

Schrock and Koontz Anthony

491

Scully, Diana, and Joseph Marolla, 1984. Convicted Rapists Vocabulary of Motive:
Excuses and Justifications. Social Problems 31:53044.
Shibutani, Tamotsu. 1955. Reference Groups as Perspectives. American Journal of
Sociology 60:56269.
Stacey, Judith. 1988. Can There Be a Feminist Ethnography? Womens Studies
International Forum 11:2127.
Stryker, Sheldon. 1969. Identity, Salience, and Role Performance: The Relevance of
Symbolic Interaction Theory for Family Research. Journal of Marriage and the
Family 30:55864.
Sumerau, J. Edward. 2012. Thats What Men Are Supposed to Do: Compensatory
Manhood Acts in an LGBT Christian Church. Gender & Society 26:46187.
Vaccaro, Christian, Douglas Schrock, and Janice McCabe. 2011. Managing
Emotional Manhood: Fighting and Fostering Fear in Mixed Martial Arts. Social
Psychology Quarterly 74:41437.
Wilkins, Amy. 2012. Not Out to Start a Revolution: Race, Gender, and Emotional
Restraint among Black University Men. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
41:3465.
Wolf, Diane L. 1996. Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Author Biographies
Douglas Schrock is an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University.
He examines the reproduction and challenging of inequalities from an interactionist
perspective. Most of his research emphasizes gender, with a focus on culture and
identity, emotion and embodiment, and personal and social change.
Amanda Koontz Anthony is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of
Central Florida. Her primary areas of specialization are culture, social psychology,
and inequalities (gender, race, class). Her current work focuses on understanding how
identity work in varying contexts affects the construction and negotiation of cultural
resources and inequalities.

Downloaded from jce.sagepub.com at University of Leeds on March 18, 2015