Unruly Theory and Difficult Practice: Issues and Dilemmas in Work with Women Politicians

Abstract

The importance of exploring the 'gender' dimension in political research has achieved a level of acceptability over the past few years as more women become part of the political mainstream as elected representatives. Rather than being viewed as lone mavericks who at best operate as honorary men and at worst function as idiosyncratic (but powerful) leaders guided by whimsy and their menstrual cycle, women politicians are now viewed as legitimate foci for analysis. As women are achieving political incorporation into parliamentary democracies, if not always power to effect change once they are there,they inevitably become targets for media and academic interest. This paper explores some of the tensions which arise for a feminist researcher intent on pursuing a feminist politics but where the theory-practice dissonance is sometimes hard to handle. This becomes especially so where her interviewees do not always share the same political values and when they sometimes engage with precisely the same kinds of power games associated with male elites. When disclosure of personal values elicits an over-empathising (and sometimes slanderous) testimony by interviewees, such revelations carry their own ethical and moral dilemmas for the feminist researcher. The paper begins by discussing the key themes in feminist research practice, including problems of definition,before moving on to consider someof the issues which arise when doing interview-based work with elite women. It explores the lack of congruence which can arise between 'established' feminist principles relating to interviewing women 'subjects' and the reality of working with 'professional' interviewee groups such as women politicians.