Developing a Methodological Framework

85

This study is concerned with individual women and their own accounts of their attitudes, motivations and behaviour and as such the study fits in neatly with qualitative research paradigm (Silverman, 2001). It aims to offer abundant expressive reports of the sample’s perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, views and feelings, and the overall analysis will explore the meanings and interpretations given to decisions about higher education.

Qualitative research (Cohen et al., 2007) situated in an interpretative paradigm, as opposed to positivist paradigm, is the best way to explore my research questions as it accepts that multiple realities exist in any given situation. I was primarily interested in how the women themselves constructed their educational decisions and experiences and what their views were. My aim is to analyse how they make sense of these experiences, and construe their reality, and how coherently and consciously they resolve the difficulties they faced when moving into higher education. I hope to discover how they illuminate their motivations and even the contradictions between their motivations and attitudes and their actual behaviour. This kind of approach is also known as the interpretative approach (Creswell, 1994).

I have selected both quantitative and qualitative methods, as both methods can be used to enhance the findings. The qualitative methods will provide very valuable in-depth information about the participants’ actual experiences whilst the quantitative methods will yield sought-after data on the scale of their experiences (Neuman, 2006). Thus I adopted a mixed-methods research approach that includes quantitative structured questionnaires, qualitative interviews, and four in-depth focused interviews. Like Patton (2002: 10), I believe that

qualitative research, by its close and in-depth study through observation and in- depth interviews, helps in the emergence of main themes. I believe that the qualitative method ‘perhaps puts flesh on the bare bones of information obtained with a structured-questionnaire.

However, as there was practically no data available on the scale of the problem in Pukhtunkhwah, both quantitative and qualitative data collection tools were proofed useful. My methodological framework has been developed by looking at feminist thought and methodologies, and over the course of my reading I am now more consciously and overtly positioning myself in the social context of women. A good example is the style of my writing. During the overall research process I have changed my writing style, from the third

86

person ‘the researcher’ to the first person ‘I’ because I have been inspired by Letherby’s (2003) work As a researcher I am focusing on women today in Pukhtunkhwah, and together the researcher and researched women are creating new knowledge. As Morely (1996: 7) notes:

when we use ‘I’ we question traditional styles of academic writing where ‘we’ ‘the author or researcher’ are meant to represent the distance and objectivity. ‘I’ is therefore a way of challenging traditional academic ‘authority’.

Furthermore, Fleischman (1998: cited in Letherby, 2003) suggests that all writings in which the author refers to her/himself as the ‘author/researcher’ or ‘we’ excludes any reference to the writer’s self and implies that they have no involvement with and no responsibility for what they write. Therefore, by changing my style I am openly accepting the responsibility for my writing and my deep involvement in it. At the same time, I am openly adopting a radical feminist approach in challenging the patriarchal and cultural norms of Pukhtunkhwah society as well as the traditional writing styles adopted by the male-dominated academia in Pakistan. 3.7. Feminist Epistemology: Me and My Sample Women in a Process of ‘new

knowledge’

This thesis is informed by the epistemological framework that the researcher’s standpoint has a great impact on the knowledge he or she produces. The recognition that knowledge is somehow subjective is important, and subjectivity ‘realises your presence’ in the knowledge. Because we all are different individuals, our life experiences, our thought and ideas are different, so we are bringing ourselves into our studies, and no knowledge is the complete or absolute truth (Hekman, 1997; Hill Collins, 1990; Harding, 1987 cited in Pourzand, 2003: 29).

The feminist research critiques (such as, Mohanty, 1998; Hooks, 2000) that the researcher’s ‘self’ has great involvement in new knowledge creation about cultural and social issues. These critiques developed the feminists’ researchers’ understanding of the dynamic complexity of multiple social categories (Pourzand, 2003). This aspect of feminists’ research has significance for my study as the sample women belong to different economic strata of Pukhtunkhwah society with different social and cultural constraints.

My limitations as a researcher – and is my own positionalities as well as those of my researched sample women – are all triangulated to understand patriarchy, unequal power relations and social injustice in Pukhtunkhwah society. This triangulation made this research

87

a unique study. So, like Pourzand (2003:29), my sample women of Pukhtunkhwah and I, together, are creating new emancipatory knowledge that relates to a complex web of culturally embedded social relations specific to a particular time and place. As mentioned by Ramazanoglu and Holland (2002:46):

If feminists’ researchers want to produce knowledge of what gender relations actually are (as a basis of emancipatory action) that is in some way ‘truer’ than pre-existence, partial, patriarchal or male-dominated knowledge, they still confront the problem (faced by all social researchers) of finding general criteria for making their knowledge believable (cited in Pourzand, 2003).

Pourzand (2003:30) commented that being a feminist researcher means being thoroughly well-informed in our research and in its political implications, which supports researchers to fulfil the criteria mentioned above. This self-reflection and self-criticism about our own self and research make us well aware about the context of the research (since individual experiences alone cannot always sufficiently explain a situation) and not imposing one’s own ideas on the research while they will no doubt influence the research).

What I understood from the feminist researchers is that the researcher’s own positionality is very important that gives honour to our own research work. This is not achieved by proving that one is ‘neutral’ and ‘objective’ as put forward by the male- centred/enlightenment rational discourse, which has contributed to the sustaining of unequal power relations (Pourzand, 2003:30).

Pourzand (2003:30) argued about Reinharz’ (1992) that women’s life experiences are worthy to be shared to the world. The objective is to make the research more beautiful with feminist emotions and feelings. If the same research was conducted by a male-researcher, then his approach and sentiments would be different. So realising the role of researcher herself in this process is inter-subjective. Pourzand (2003:30) introduced me to the work of Yuval-Devis (1997), and how she develops the rationale for writing about transversal politics14 _{or the efforts to forge alliances with other women (and men) in spite of different}

lived experiences. To quote Yuval-Devis (1997:17; cited in Pourzand, 2003): this approach is based on the epistemological recognition that each positing produces specific situated knowledge that cannot be but an unfinished knowledge. Therefore dialogues among those differentially positioned should take place in order to reach a common perspective as a basis for common

14 _{For further details see Yuval-Devis, N. (1999) What is Transversal politics? available at:}

88

action or policy. Transversal dialogue should be based on the principles of rooting and shifting—being centred in one’s own experience while being empathetic to the differential positioning of the partners in the dialogue, thus enabling the participants to arrive at a different perspective from that hegemonic tunnel vision.

However, no one can change the unequal socio-political realities of both genders, because gender dynamics affect their life experiences and the social structure of the society and make them different individuals. Society overhauls them accordingly to their gender specific roles. Consequently, ‘despite the post-modernist’s valid concern for essentialism and homogenisation of social categories, it is still possible and in fact, important, to understand the gendered lives of women in different contexts’ (Stanley and Wise, 2008, cited in Pourzand, 2003). This is only possible when feminist philosophy or women themselves challenge these unequal power relations in society by breaking their silence. This is particularly relevant in the case of Pukhtunkhwah women, as feminist research is also about the ethics of the sample and society.

I followed Pourzand’s (2003) suggestion to share the outcome of my research with some of my sample colleges, teachers and experts on the subject15. I presented it in a couple of conferences and have received feedback. It really helped me to have a new audience because me and my supervisors had been involved in this study for a very long time, and our minds were greatly influenced by listening to our sample women’s perceptions and experiences of their higher education. My sample women had never shared their feelings and ideas with anyone nor had they ever been asked to do so. The subjects’ voices had, up until they have been silenced. I love the following words of Pourzand (2003: 32): “I accept the limitations of this study and the knowledge which my thesis intends to share. It is based on who I am and who I am not, who I choose for my study (and who I did not) the questions I asked (and those missed). The answers given—and the silences—as well as the theoretical framework and analysis as well as language and writing are my version of understanding” .These words echo my feelings too, because my study is an initiative towards the Pukhtun women empowerment and emancipation in Pukhtunkhwah. This study will open new arenas for future gender studies in Pakistan.

15 _{Such as Prof. Dave Hill of Anglia Ruskin University, my doctoral supervisors at Middlesex University, Dr. Gillian Hilton}

89 3.8. The Study Plan of Action

I based the selection of my methodological tools on Hussain’s (1995) study, but with some different variables. However, because of the similar nature of our research enquiries, I adapted her questionnaires according to my research questions and sample women from the rural and urban North West Province of Pakistan. Furthermore, I was discouraged by my supervisors from postal questionnaires because of their poor response rate. Therefore I included another semi-structured questionnaire in my Post Survey enquiry. Thus the research process is summarised as:

Table 3. The research process

1. An informal discussion with the Director of colleges Pukhtunkhwah (March 2008)

Research Tool Time Sample

Pilot Study April 2008 10 students from a different college

2. Initial Survey

a. Questionnaire September 2008 40 students

(10 students from each college: 10x4= 40)

3. Audit Survey a. Questionnaire (A repeat of the initial survey questionnaire)

April 2009 172 students (43x4= 172) Other than Initial Survey Group

4.The Post- Survey

a. Questionnaire September 2009 Original 40 students of initial survey (10x4= 40) b. Focused-Interviews September 2009 4 students (1 from each

college)

Following Hussain’s (1995:104) instructions, the data collection process also included documentary evidence from the colleges and triangulation tests. It was in the form of information listed in college brochures along with admission criteria for university that was retrieved from online websites and various university departments and examined as part of the research. In addition, statistics on women in higher education were obtained from the University Grants Commission and Directorate of Education (Colleges) Pukhtunkhwah for in depth data analysis.

To test the variables of this study and get the most valid answers of the research questions, I employed Methodological triangulation; where I used different methods of

90

qualitative and quantitative data collection tools; semi-structured questionnaires and focused interviews. I also employed Time triangulation; by cross-checking the validity of my initial survey questionnaire of 2009 with my audit survey sample of 172 at a different time of the year.