Feminist Post-Structural Methodology and the Rationale for this Methodological Approach

This research is informed by a feminist post-structural framework that coincides with my epistemological belief system of multiple truths constructed by subjective experiences. This study allowed for qualitative data collection, through semi-structured interviews with teachers who address FM in the classroom and stakeholders that have a vested interest in FM policies (the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) (Weaver and Olson, 2006). This provides rich, descriptive, explanatory data which unlocks multiple truths through different perceptions and experiences of the participants by giving them a voice (Hughes and Cohen, 2010). The sample represents two groups who provide expertise from different viewpoints. These are stakeholders who comment on the ideology and creation of government policy, and teachers who discuss the implementation and interpretation of policy in a practical setting; the classroom.

Figure 1. Methodology

57

A summary of the methodology adopted for this study is illustrated above in figure 1 (also see section 3.7 and 3.11 for details). This study investigated the implications of implementing FM policy. Therefore, it was necessary to understand FM policy and its background, along with how, in practice, FM policy is implemented. The first heading

‘policy’ has two columns, the documents used to inform the study and how data were collected relating to policy. Under the heading ‘policy’, the first column relates to documents reviewed as background research to understanding FM policy, such as legislation (the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) and guidance (Multi-Agency practice guidelines: Handling cases of forced marriage 2014 Multi-Agency statutory guidance for dealing with forced marriage 2014) about FM. Having grasped the essence of the FM policy through the documents, I was in a better position to collect data through semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders who played a part in shaping FM policy. Through reviewing the FM policy documents, I noted how FM was framed in policy. I then addressed this framing of FM by policies with the stakeholders. This is represented by the second column under policy. The second heading is ‘practice’

which also has two columns. The first column relates to the materials that I considered to understand how the teachers approached and delivered the FM session in the classroom. The material consisted of a collection of the slides that were presented to the class and varied according to the students’ age range. The second column under

‘practice’ represents the data that I collected in relation to the implementation of FM policies. This consisted of observing teachers delivering a session on FM and interviewing the teachers following the session.

As this research is based upon peoples’ experiences of teaching FM, it is necessary for the method of data collection to allow individuals to express themselves in their own way. Structured interviews or surveys do not provide sufficient flexibility; the chosen method needs to incorporate narratives and a strategy for discovering new ground. Discussion on FM is a complex and sensitive subject. Hence semi-structured interviews are an appropriate method of data collection, as they allow sufficient in-depth information to be gathered and for explanations to be provided for clarity.

Interviews can be adapted to meet the researcher’s needs through re-examining and further probing responses to enhance answers (Bell, 2010). Also tone and expressions can be recorded that cannot be gathered and understood through questionnaires. Interviews allow for empirical data to be generated through the natural course of a conversation (Bell, 2010). This complements the feminist post-structural framework of qualitative, in-depth, narrative data collection.

58

Information gathered through interviews is subjective, actual views and rich insights into peoples’ lives, experiences, opinions, attitudes and feelings (May, 2011). Semi-structured interviews are not rigid and allow the participant to provide a narrative and answer questions on their own terms (Gilbert, 2008). Semi-structured interviews allow for some standardised questions, which assists with comparability at the data analysis stage. In a one-to-one interview, each individual is heard and their voice does not fall into the shadow of a dominant speaker, which can happen within a focus group.

Interviews provide the opportunity for the researcher and participant to build up a rapport, which could result in individuals divulging more information than in a focus group or survey (Oakley, 1981). Disengagement within the interview is not conducive to the traditional aim of establishing rapport (Oakley, 1981; May, 2011).

During the interviews for this study, I built up a rapport with the teachers (see discussion below on power hierarchies). This resulted in two participants admitting to me that they had divulged more information than they had originally planned (Holloway and Jefferson, 2013; Outer, Handley and Price, 2013). May (2011) described reciprocal dialogue between the researcher and participant suggesting that:

“…engagement is a valued aspect of the feminist research process.”

(May, 2011, p. 135).

Therefore, the interviews played an important part in the data collection process.

Observations of classroom teaching on FM were also used as a method for collecting data. Observation involves studying behaviour in natural settings (Gilbert, 2008) and aims to uncover and analyse the foundations of social culture and life (Silverman, 2011), by allowing thick description to manifest (MacLure, 2003a). This research sought to challenge the context of a ‘natural setting’ and the concept of natural and to whom. Being forced to marry is not natural and against Recommendation no. 21, UN Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1981).

Being required to teach a sensitive topic, which may not naturally belong in the classroom, may also be perceived as an unnatural process. Thus, by introducing topics such as FM into the classroom, alongside conventional subjects like maths and English, the discourse of a ‘natural setting’ is unsettled and blurred.

59

Observations, along with interviews, develop an understanding of the culture, shared experiences and an insight into why things are done in a specific way (Bell, 2010).

Whyte (1955) commented on how sitting and listening can provide answers to questions that one would not have thought to ask in an interview situation. Therefore the observations complemented the interviews in this research.

Stacey (1988), Gordon (2003), Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) and Albon and Rosen (2014) have questioned if feminist ethnography is appropriate as it creates inequality in the researcher/participant relationship. Stacey suggested that:

“…..[ethnography] represents an intervention into a system of relationship that the researcher is far freer than the researched to leave.”

(Stacey, 1988, p. 21).

To address this concern the consent form (Appendix 4) stated that the interviewee could withdraw from participating in the study at any time.

It can be argued that observations, within a feminist post-structural framework, are both appropriate and invaluable to research. Observations allow subjective experiences to be collected through working in first-hand, in close proximity with the participant in their activity and environment.