Co-constructing feminist research: Ensuring meaningful participation while researching the experiences of criminalised women

Abstract

Traditional forms of knowledge production can serve to reproduce the power imbalances present within the social contexts that research and knowledge production occur. With the interests of the discipline of criminology so closely entwined with the criminal justice system, it is no surprise that crime, punishment, rehabilitation and desistance have not been adequately examined from a gendered perspective. This article examines a participatory action research process conducted with criminalised women subject to community punishment and probation supervision in the North West of England. By examining the feminist methodology within which this research is framed, discussions about meaningful collaboration offer insights into the potential for creativity in research to become transformative. Using a range of creative qualitative research methods, specifically map making, photovoice and creative writing, this research attempts to understand the experience of criminalised women. Charting the way in which this research prioritises the collaboration of criminalised women at all stages of the research process, this article proposes that ‘meaningful’ participation is about more than process management. It is only by moving beyond typologies of participation, towards an understanding of how participation in the created research space responds to the groups wider oppression, in this case by overcoming trauma or demonstrating reform, that collaboration with holders of lived experience can uncover subjugated knowledge and facilitate transformative action.

Being a ‘good woman’: Stigma, relationships and desistance

“…Feminist research has developed to establish action against power raising questions of the imbalances within research when traditional forms of knowledge production reproduce those present within the social contexts that research and knowledge production occur (Harding, 2020). In addition, taking a feminist approach offers a contribution which pushes back on the intersectional relations of power, inequality and oppression felt by those whom are the focus (Glucksmann, 1994).…”

Criminologist or criminal? Liminal spaces as the site for auto/biography

“…Wilkins (1993) argues that there is an important place for 'taking it personally in research'. Our biographies are a valued source for weaving together the stories of the researcher and the theories and concepts that surround them (Cotterill and Letherby, 1993;Dragomir, 2020;Harding, 2020) and providing a tool for transforming dominant positions of knowledge. Indeed, observe that 'feelings of personal conflict, anxiety, surprise, shock, or revulsion are of analytical significance'.…”

“…Reflexive practice has risen up research agendas (Dragomir, 2020;Harding, 2020;Pearce, 2020) and feminist epistemologies have argued that knowledge is contextually specific and the researcher's biography affects what they find out and what we know. Research is not undertaken in a vacuum and researchers cannot claim to be occupying a neutral default position (Hammond and Kingston, 2014).…”

Researching relationality: Reflections on the use of concept cards during in-depth interviews

“…Participants therefore had a more active role due to their involvement in selecting/adding topics, and so the cards can be viewed as enhancing participation during data collection, as opposed to full involvement as collaborators emphasized in participatory action research (PAR) -an approach which also resonates with relational frameworks (see Datta et al, 2015). However, the emphasis on full involvement within PAR has been critiqued for conflating meaningful and consistent participation, failing at times to account for the demands research places on participants' time and emotional wellbeing (Harding, 2020), while researcher guilt around projects not being participatory 'enough' may lean towards quantifying participation as opposed to focusing on quality (Janes, 2016). Despite not feeding into every stage of the research, increased participation through using the cards allowed for meaningful contributions over which the women in this study had greater control, with the cards also uncovering the relationality of knowledge production during the research encounter (Janes, 2016).…”