OCTOBER 23rd: Discuss Feminist Political Ecology in the Comments Section below.
1. Rocheleau, D. (1995). Maps, Numbers, Text, and Context: Mixing Methods in Feminist Political Ecology. The Professional Geographer, 47(4), 458-466.
2. Nightingale, A. (2003) A Feminist in the Forest: Situated Knowledges and Mixing Methods in Natural Resource Management, ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographers 2(1) p.77-90.
3. Nightingale, A. (2011) Bounding difference: Intersectionality and the material production of gender, caste, class and environment in Nepal Geoforum 42(2), 153-162.
4. Bavington, D. et. al. 2004. A feminist political ecology of fishing down: Reflections from Newfoundland and Labrador. Studies in Political Economy. 73, Spring/Summer, 159-182.
Optional readings: D. E. Rocheleau, B. Thomas-Slayter and E. Wangari (eds.). 1997. Feminist Political Ecology: Global Perspectives and Local Experience. London: Taylor & Francis. Selected chapters. Rocheleau, D. E. (1995), Gender and Biodiversity: A feminist political ecology perspective. IDS Bulletin, 26: 9–16; Sultana, F. (2011) Suffering for water, suffering from water: Emotional geographies of resource access, control and conflict Geoforum 42(2), 163-172; Salleh,A. (ed.) (2009) Eco-sufficiency and Global Justice: Women Write Political Ecology. Pluto Press; Emel, J. 1995. “‘Are You Man Enough, Big and Bad Enough’: An Ecofeminist Analysis of Wolf Eradication in the United States” Society and Space: Environment and Planning. 13: 707-734;
Reflections on Rocheleau (1995), Nightingale (2003, 2011) and Bavington et al (2004)
By Marc
I was (pleasantly) surprised by these readings in a significant way. I had certainly expected ‘gender’ to be an analytic across them, but they all seemed more concerned with broader questions of identity and the constitution of social-ecological space. Rocheleau (1995) and Nightingale (2011) in particular sought to explicitly broaden the field of identification beyond gender to embrace ‘affinities’ (Rocheleau) and intersectionality (Nightingale). In this sense I found the papers spoke powerfully to the issues of methodology (how to know), epistemology (what we can know about what *is*) and ontology (what *is*).
METHODOLOGY (how to go about knowing)
Rocheleau (1995) and Nightingale (2003) both explicitly set out develop their evidence bases from multiple methods, particularly focussing on the quantitative-qualitative spectrum. Rocheleau develops her arguments around evidence from 1) large surveys of association members, 2) qualitative interviews, focus groups and participant observations, and 3) a (strange in my view) mapping exercise where it seems the *researcher* drew the map that the participants described. The aim here was to try and say something about the quality and extent of relationships/processes being observed. In contrast, Nightingale’s approach compared qualitative oral histories/interviews (etc) against aerial photographs of forest change in order to make an argument that neither approach on its own captures the ‘truth’ but that together we can move toward thinking about their ‘partial objectivities’. The oral histories speak of large scale forest improvement (not evident in the photos) but this can be reconciled biophysically by considering the particular spatial areas being described by participants. In sum, these contributions deploy multiple methods and in both cases the quantitative data help to re-understand the qualitative.
EPISTEMOLOGY (what we can know)
The papers describe a very real politics of epistemology. Choosing what is included in their analyses affects the outcomes and implications of their work. Bavington et al (2004) for example, describe the complexities associated with *knowing* fish stocks within a bounded space. Efforts to rationally assess and manage fish within this context gives effect to particular political formations, as well as particular kinds of ecological interventions. With both Rocheleau and Nightingale (2003) papers, their choices to include multiple methods fundamentally changed the nature of their explanations. Without the aerial photos, Nightingale’s explanation would have relied solely on the participants descriptions, and the spatially heterogeneous nature of environmental change would not have been read into the analysis. An important question that arises for me is, where do we stop? At what point can we say ‘ok, this many methods is enough’? How partial is too partial? In the context over debates about realism and quantitative-qualitative approaches, Rocheleau claims to be using multiple methods to gain a deeper insight into the world (with a view to learning), whereas Nightingale nominally rejects a critical realist project of ‘triangulating’, although I do not find her argument convincing.
ONTOLOGY (what there is to know)
There are some theoretical and ontological moves in these papers, which attempt to reconfigure the fundamental categories and processes of social life. Perhaps the clearest example of this is with Nightingale (2011), as she describes an emerging ‘outside of caste’ politics in Nepal which enables new identity and power relations to be performed, while not necessarily challenging internal hierarchies. Nightingale along with Rocheleau (1995) also embrace a complex social ontology of identity formation. Rocheleau’s move is significant in that it does not pre-reify gender as a category (while keeping it handy for analysis) and seeks to let women self-identify through affinity, thus broadening the relational network of identity formation. How do these women experience their roles and identities in these social networks? In a different way, Bavington et al (2004) set out to complexify the *responsible processes* for ‘fishing down’, by drawing out the multiple relations – between producers and consumers, labour and industry, state and public – which collaborate to produce ecological outcomes. They argue that in drawing together these threads we can begin to think more holistically and strategically about how to fashion sustainable alternatives. In sum, the papers add to the ‘what is’ of processes responsible for social and environmental change.
QUESTIONS
How many methods are enough? Are we convinced that the aim of multiple methods can be more than (or anything other than) triangulation?
While Rocheleau and Nightingale discuss quantitative-qualitative explanation, they are still largely talking about social explanation, and even Nightingale makes an effort to dismiss/caveat the realism of the aerial photos as social production. Where do these papers leave those of us concerned with environmental explanation? Does this just mean we need to ground truth any analysis by pursuing local oral histories?
I found the articles by Rocheleau (1995) and Nightingale (2003) very appealing since they cover methodological issues and questions that many graduate students, including myself, constantly face. In an article relating an ambitious research project (including work in more than 30 communities), Rocheleau addresses three important points that are not only relevant to feminist political ecology but also to countless of other disciplines: (1) the difference between identity and affinity, (2) the ongoing debate between the use of quantitative or qualitative approaches, and (3) the tactic for life stories to be successfully accounted for in a mixed method approach. Her decision to favour affinity (the social and political structures shaping the Federation of Zambrana-Chacuey) over identify (women) is very interesting and made me reflect on my own methodological framework for my research. As she points out, an approach based on affinity, in some context, is most effective to reach the key actors in relation to the research empirical questions. Also, I have always been interested by the debate on what approach – qualitative or quantitative – accounts for a better picture of reality. While I acknowledge that it is very context-dependent, I am increasingly attracted by mixed methods that can, if applied well, confer the best of both worlds. I find desirable the suggestion to “challenge scientists to revalue the subjective, then stretch and combine into something that can be verified and validated through a variety of methods (including quantitative measures) within an every widening circle of shared experience” (p. 459). Finally, I believe that Rocheleau brings a very important point when suggesting that the identity of the interviewer is often as important as the identity of the interviewee. I found interesting the decision to include both men and women in their interviewing teams. This brings the question of “how does the gender, race or social class of the researcher affects the respondents’ answers?”
Nightingale (2003) also supports the idea of mixing qualitative and quantitative methods. Her article effectively shows how methodological choices are crucial in shaping the research outcomes and that one can gain from always reflecting on and revisiting his methodology. She explains that mixing methods can allow for triangulation of data, a practice that is fairly conventional. Less orthodoxly, she proposes that triangulation not only allows to evaluate the accuracy of a data set, but in some cases also permits to explore the “silences and discrepancies between the results” (p. 81). While I find very attractive this approach, mainly because it allows for a more thorough examination of the different trends, I believe that it needs to be used with caution; especially for less practiced researchers. In effect, triangulation is useful to insure that the collected data are consistent and reliable; using different methods to explore dissimilar data can be misleading if one or more of the data sets were not robustly collected or are inaccurate. Nevertheless, by providing a more insightful and balanced understanding of community forestry in Nepal, Nightingale showed how this approach could be useful. Furthermore, I found very interesting the concept that personal stories account for both past experiences and current interpretation of it. As Nightingale explains: “while these narratives are snap shots in a sense, they also continuously link the past with the present through the words and experiences of the individuals telling them” (p. 81). I believe that this shows how important it is to consider an interviewee’s current situation when asking about past experiences.
In her article written in 2010, Nightingale makes an impressive demonstration of how the exercise of power is complex and multilateral. My opinion might be justified by my little knowledge of scholarship on feminist political ecology and the system of caste, but I found that Nightingale’s report on how subjectivities and social inequalities are “(re)constructed” in the everyday life and through the “embodied interesectionality of gender, caste, class and ecology” is very innovative. I found especially mind-boggling the demonstration that the exercise of power is incongruous and complex to the extent that “oppressed people [can] become invested in their own oppression” (p. 158). She also shows how gender, class, caste, ecology, subjectivities and the daily use of space can contribute to hierarchies that are neither fixed in time or space. Even though the contestation of hierarchical power is possible and can open new opportunities for the exercise of power (lateral, multi-dimensional and hierarchical) for marginalized groups, Nightingale shows that these contestations can also intensify the subjectivities and inequalities.
I thought that the article by Bavington et al (2004) represented a great example of political ecology, or how political, social and ecological interactions shape environmental issues – in this case the depletion of marine resources. However, I would have expected that the focus of the arguments would be further centered on the interaction between gender and nature. The authors made it very clear in their introduction that the article would “explore links between the oppression of women and the degradation of nature that have been historically embedded in fisheries science and policies” (p. 161). Their conceptual framework was neatly presented and gave a good overview of feminist political ecology; I therefore felt that gender would be at the very center of their analysis. I especially found interesting their argument that political ecology and feminist political ecology were partly overlooking the “materiality of nature,” which they described as “the biophysical realities of natural systems and the way these have constrained but not determined the development of natural resource-based industries, property relations, gender relations, regulation, the dynamic of colonialism, and other political economic processes” (p. 164). However, while some of their conclusions definitely regarded the oppression of women and how the laws, customs and regulations of the fishing industry generates gender biased circumstances, I found that most of the empirical section of the article (i.e., the case study of fishery in Newfoundland) concentrated mostly on the political ecology of fishing and environment degradation without greatly emphasizing on the role of gender. This made me realize that my presumptions on feminist studies were probably erroneous; feminist political ecology offers way more flexibility than a conceptual framework solely based on gender.
Questions
What characteristics a study must have to be considered as feminist political ecology?
How does the gender, race or social class of the researcher affect the respondents’ answers during an interview?
What are the advantages of mixed methods over purely quantitative or qualitative methodological frameworks?
Victoria Padilla
Reflection- Feminist political ecology
Dianne Rocheleau’s ‘Maps, Numbers, Text, and Context: Mixing Methods in Feminist Political Ecology’ can be read as a work on feminist methodological approach and in that sense it was insightful. It discussed the contested utility of diverse methodological approaches, and validated its use when they are engaged and aware of the multiplicity of subjectivities in any kind of knowledge. The awareness of the partially of knowledge can be either paralyzing or inspiring of new ways to construct more inclusive knowledge. Rocheleau’s drive was precisely the inspired kind. She managed to present an initial form of coherently combined qualitative and quantitative methods framed by feminist political ecology. The way the different methodologies were used in different scales in an attempt to validate data at different levels of sampling. What perhaps I found most interesting here is that even in the application in the quantitative methods, the epistemological frames of feminist political ecology allowed for the finding of unexpected data that in any other case –due to the epistemological foundation of quantitative science- would not have revealed gender differences. At the same time reaffirming the role of affinity in research design.
However, I was even more impressed with Andrea Nightingale’s ‘A Feminist in the Forest: Situated Knowledges and Mixing Methods in Natural Resource Management’ methodological discussion. For Nightingale the use of mix method is not a way to validate information by using different methodologies in a way assumes them to possess more or less validity, as Rocheleau argued. On the contrary, for Nightingale, starts by assuming that the results from all methodologies are incomplete and products of their own context and the unbalanced power relations of said context. She particularly argues for the reconsideration of the equally partial knowledge produced by quantitative methods compared to qualitative ones. This argument comes from finding value in the discrepancies that the date from diverse origins produces. Nightingale proposes that the discrepancies and silences tell as much -if not more- about situated knowledge, political interest and agendas than the actual datasets. Curiously, I did not find a clear engagement with discrepancies and silences in ‘ Bounding difference: Intersectionality and the material production of gender, caste, class and environment in Nepal.’ As I understand it is not the purpose of this work, the diverse methodologies used are not clear in the building of the argument. On the other hand, her use of ethnographic method and her definitive assertions about the blurred distinction between material and symbolic embedded in the performance of social difference seems to argue for the unique validity of qualitative approaches when it comes to symbolism, either embodied or not. In the case of Dean Bavington et al., in A feminist political ecology of fishing down: Reflections from Newfoundland and Labrador there is also an intersection of the ideological and the material, however they come from again a combination of different methodological approaches and forms of data and data use that try to analyze both the socially determined aspects of fishing down- patriarchy, capitalism and science- as much as the biophysical processes of stock collapses, as joint co-produced processes.
Questions
How can we make use of feminist political ecology when our work does not engage with questions of gender? Are the formulations as valid if we are working with other forms of social difference? Is the methodological and epistemological approach of feminist political ecology necessary for any kind of socially and politically engaged research? If so is the category of ‘feminist’ suiting for identifying this kind of epistemological and and methodological perspective?
Reflection for Feminist Political Ecology
Colin Sutherland
This week’s readings were a great compliment to last week’s discussion on environmental racism. I think my yearning for a discussion on gender, something I mentioned in last week’s reflection, was partially addressed as we considered the four readings on Feminist Political Ecology. I was surprised by some of the discussion on methodology as it was not what I was expecting, and found myself dually interested in the two case studies that were presented as they applied slightly different feminist lenses to political ecology questions.
Rocheleau (1995) and Nightingale (2003) provide us with two takes on how methodology can be improved coming from the feminist political ecology direction. I found Andrea Nightingale’s piece particularly interesting because of how she contested some ideas that are becoming normalized in the field. What I mean by this is the expectation that methods such as questionnaires cannot bring anything as valuable as long form interviews, and other more ‘in depth’ qualitative approaches, to the table. Her point that these varying methods all have the ability to bring another dimension to our analysis not only suggests that there are meanings that cannot be achieved through a singular methodology, but that in fact some methodologies can bring us closer to developing a feminist perspective because these methodologies, in their diversity, bring a stronger voice to women and people in general. I thought her point about analyzing data from the different methods in relation to each other, rather than promoting one as the method to root one’s analysis in was very compelling. She expands on this by saying,
What is at issue is not whether different methods, qualitative or quantitative, are feminist, but rather do they fully embrace the notion of different knowledges. When different kinds of knowledges are taken seriously and all are critically interrogated, richer results are generated, new interpretations emerge and the supremacy of any one kind of knowledge is challenged.” (86-87)
I think this is a great comment to make in that it goes beyond gender and can include the many other realms that influence society.
While I appreciated the case study by Nightingale (2011) for its critical analysis of the depth of meanings associated with various dimensions of identity in Nepal, I was much more drawn to Bavington et al.’s analysis of the fisheries in Newfoundland. This was because of personal connections to the place and the reading’s questioning of science, policy and culture from this particular feminist tradition. She frames this well when she says, “[i]t is not just patriarchy that has destroyed the fish stocks but also capitalism and science” (Bavington et al, 2004:176). I found it really interesting that she was able to question whose science, whose policy and whose patriarchal structures and norms were ruining the fish stock. She was able to uncover not only the blatant sexist policy and practices but suggest that there was more wrong with the collapse of the Newfoundland fisheries than simply poor ‘management’ or by blaming the victims. One critique I have is that she frames some her argument as a struggle for women without explicitly framing a struggle. I feel like there is a difference between oppression and struggle but perhaps I misunderstood this use of the word. But in her defense she does make it quite clear that even if there was a struggle there is very little in the public record of women speaking out on these issues. So, once again, it seems that patriarchy is not only capable of diffusing that struggle but erasing the knowledge of that struggle.
While I was please that gender had made a more profound appearance in our semester long look at the various dimensions of Political Ecology, I cannot help but feel like there has not been much discussed on how queer theory can be brought into arena. I think heterosexual and patriarchal concepts and narratives are often applied to our discussion on nature and I’m curious as to how Queer theorists and their approach to gender may give more depth to our discussion on gender in the realm of Political Ecology. As I’m not an expert on this I’d love to see if anyone else has ideas!
Questions for the class:
What does a feminist ‘science’ look like?
What other feminist tools of analysis can be brought into or transformed for our use in political ecology?
Are there dimensions of political ecological analysis that can be used to improve feminist analysis?
The overarching idea in this week’s reading, for me, was that of multiplicity. Whether this was manifest in Dianne Rocheleau’s (1995) and Andrea Nightingale’s (2003) employment of “mixed methods”, or Bavington et al’s (2004) framing of “gender relations” at the level of both “structuring principle in society” and as an “integral” part of daily life and interaction between genders (161), feminist political ecology (as understood by this selection of texts) is deeply concerned with the implications of looking through only one lens. This was something that Nightingale emphatically avoided in her 2010 article, in which she argues (quite convincingly) that the materially produced (and reproduced) subject positions of gender, caste, class, etc are imbricated with one another and, as such, cannot be examined separately.
I found this emphasis particularly interesting, and appealing, because it is not something that I noticed as strongly last week (which may have been my own mistake). That is to say, last week I was a bit surprised by a lack of integrating gender or class within the analyses of race. I felt that Nightingale’s 2010 article was particularly rigorous in terms of deconstructing the production of identities and the integrated ecological effects.
I did struggle a bit with the idea of mixing methodologies as explained by Rocheleau (1995) particularly where she strives to “fully integrate the gendered insights of stories and pictures with the rigour and comparative value of quantitative methods?” (460) I understand, and appreciate, the necessity of utilizing another approach that allows for a more pluralistic view than counting, but I found her language concerning the sketching exercise to be problematic. Certainly the exercise appears to have produced important information but the power dynamic between researcher and participant could have done with more explanation.
To this issue I appreciated Nightingale’s (2003) point that “understood in these terms [Rocheleau’s], triangulation is a technique whereby the results from one method are compared in relation to another method to ensure the results are consistent or corroborate each other, thereby validating the data.” (79) Because of this potential problem, Nightingale’s placing of aerial photo data alongside oral histories to “allow for the notion that such knowledges are partial and that different vantage points…will produce different views of particular processes and events…” (80) was particularly resonant for me.
Question:
We have already encountered the critique of political ecology that says it is predominantly concerned with the “third world” and the problems that this can present given the privileged position of the researcher. Of course there is always the temptation to take a moral stance, one that I encountered when reading Nightingale’s (2010) description of “women’s pollution” and the case of her ill friend. I wonder how we, as researchers, can balance our own strongly held beliefs (like a western conception of equality) when encountering cases that have obvious adverse effects?
When I first glanced at this week’s readings, I must admit, I felt a little disappointed. I expected them to be dry treatises on methodology. I was quite pleasantly surprised by the actual substance of the texts and how each piece is a somewhat critical approach—there’s a lot that can be said about how this set of readings relate to one another and to our conversation last week. So my point is, I really enjoyed them.
This week, as I’ve been preparing myself to present on feminist political ecology (fpe), I have spent a lot of thinking about the history of fpe and the context that these texts emerge out of. Accordingly, I think that my response will be a broader reaction to the readings. When we talk about fpe, we’re really talking about scholarship from 1996 onwards. 1996 doesn’t seem so distant, but its quite amazing how much feminist political ecology has changed since the publication of Feminist Political Ecologies. What now seems somewhat expected was really at the fore of feminist scholarship in the mid-nineties; I imagine that Rocheleau was also amongst the first to include gender as a component of resource management. It’s so easy to forget that the concepts that I now take for granted (intersectionality is, for example, a common buzzword in feminist scholarship) were so hard earned.
Reading these pieces chronologically was also informative with regards to the general scope of Geography since the 1990s. Despite my previous background in Geography, I remember that even when I got here two months ago, I heard the phrase ‘cultural turn’ passed around like a softball, and had no idea what it meant. It was, of course, eventually explained and the definition makes sense, but to see how these ideas and shifts away from positivism and quantitative methods have actually played out and been negotiated in the literature is enlightening.
It’s interesting to compare what Rocheleau was doing in 1996 with Nightingale in 2003. Rocheleau incorporates feminist methodology (oral history etc) with quantative methods. This serves two purposes: making women’s experiences more visible, but it also seems to be about corroborating her results and making her work legible to science. In contrast, Nightingale deliberately moves away from the triangulation approach. Her approach is more about taking into account the different knowledges produced by different methods. Thus for Nightingale, there is room for both quantitative and qualitative methods in feminist political ecology: “What is at issue is not whether different methods, qualitative or quantitative, are feminist, but rather do they fully embrace the notion of different knowledges. When different kinds of knowledges are taken seriously and all are critically interrogated, richer results are generated, new interpretations emerge and the supremacy of any one kind of knowledge is challenged” (86-87). Both of these pieces were directly inspired by Donna Haraway’s work, but they take it in different directions. I think that this is quite reflective of the particular moment in which each author was writing.
In one of last week’s readings “Reflections on a White Discipline”, Pulido argues that the “study of race has remained isolated within parts of geography because of disciplinary fragmentation” (42). This statement really echoes with feminist political ecology, which 1) doesn’t seem to substantially engage with race and 2) is treated as separate from issues of environmental racism and environmental justice. Why are do these areas of research seem to have so little overlap and conversation between them?
Reflection – Feminist Political Ecology
Colin Sutherland
This week’s readings were a great compliment to last week’s discussion on environmental racism. I think my yearning for a discussion on gender, something I mentioned in last week’s reflection, was partially addressed as we considered the four readings on Feminist Political Ecology. I was surprised by some of the discussion on methodology as it was not what I was expecting, and found myself dually interested in the two case studies that were presented as they applied slightly different feminist lenses to political ecology questions.
Rocheleau (1995) and Nightingale (2003) provide us with two takes on how methodology can be improved coming from the feminist political ecology direction. I found Andrea Nightingale’s piece particularly interesting because of how she contested some ideas that are becoming normalized in the field. What I mean by this is the expectation that methods such as questionnaires cannot bring anything as valuable as long form interviews, and other more ‘in depth’ qualitative approaches, to the table. Her point that these varying methods all have the ability to bring another dimension to our analysis not only suggests that there are meanings that cannot be achieved through a singular methodology, but that in fact some methodologies can bring us closer to developing a feminist perspective because these methodologies, in their diversity, bring a stronger voice to women and people in general. I thought her point about analyzing data from the different methods in relation to each other, rather than promoting one as the method to root one’s analysis in was very compelling. She expands on this by saying,
What is at issue is not whether different methods, qualitative or quantitative, are feminist, but rather do they fully embrace the notion of different knowledges. When different kinds of knowledges are taken seriously and all are critically interrogated, richer results are generated, new interpretations emerge and the supremacy of any one kind of knowledge is challenged.” (86-87)
I think this is a great comment to make in that it goes beyond gender and can include the many other realms that influence society.
While I appreciated the case study by Nightingale (2011) for its critical analysis of the depth of meanings associated with various dimensions of identity in Nepal, I was much more drawn to Bavington et al.’s analysis of the fisheries in Newfoundland. This was because of personal connections to the place and the reading’s questioning of science, policy and culture from this particular feminist tradition. She frames this well when she says, “[i]t is not just patriarchy that has destroyed the fish stocks but also capitalism and science” (Bavington et al, 2004:176). I found it really interesting that she was able to question whose science, whose policy and whose patriarchal structures and norms were ruining the fish stock. She was able to uncover not only the blatant sexist policy and practices but suggest that there was more wrong with the collapse of the Newfoundland fisheries than simply poor ‘management’ or by blaming the victims. One critique I have is that she frames some her argument as a struggle for women without explicitly framing a struggle. I feel like there is a difference between oppression and struggle but perhaps I misunderstood this use of the word. But in her defense she does make it quite clear that even if there was a struggle there is very little in the public record of women speaking out on these issues. So, once again, it seems that patriarchy is not only capable of diffusing that struggle but erasing the knowledge of that struggle.
While I was please that gender had made a more profound appearance in our semester long look at the various dimensions of Political Ecology, I cannot help but feel like there has not been much discussed on how queer theory can be brought into arena. I think heterosexual and patriarchal concepts and narratives are often applied to our discussion on nature and I’m curious as to how Queer theorists and their approach to gender may give more depth to our discussion on gender in the realm of Political Ecology. As I’m not an expert on this I’d love to see if anyone else has ideas!
Questions for the class:
What does a feminist ‘science’ look like?
What other feminist tools of analysis can be brought into or transformed for our use in political ecology?
Are there dimensions of political ecological analysis that can be used to improve feminist analysis?