Feminist methodologies Linda J. Peake York University, Canada There is genuine confusion and misunderstanding about the term “methodologies” among and beyond feminists. A search of the term yields deinitions that range through vague (“general research strategy,” “the design process for carrying out research”) to inadequate (“the study of methods”), the latter equating methodology with techniques for data collection. While the term is mercurial, it still requires deinition and is taken here to refer to the theoretical underpinning of the practices, procedures, and rules used by feminists to conduct research. As such it accounts for many aspects of how research is conducted, but it also explains “the literature the researcher is using, the language and terminology, the other theories and explanations being used, the methods and the type of analysis that will be used to interpret the data and information collected” (Rangahau n.d.), as well as the formulation of research questions. And yet, despite its central importance to conducting research, to producing new practices of knowledge production, and to linking the intellectual and political, feminist geographers have not paid the same degree of attention to methodology as they have to theory; methodology still has the status of country cousin to city theory. The ield of Feminist geography also came later than other disciplines to studies of methodologies, the irst journal theme issue being published by The Professional Geographer in 1994 and the irst book being published only in 2002 (Moss 2002), whereas in sociology, for example, feminists have been publishing extensively on issues of methodologies and pioneering interventions into feminist methods since the early 1980s (see, e.g., Annie Oakley’s (1981) seminal piece on feminist interviewing; Dorothy Smith’s (1987) work on institutional ethnographies). And, despite noting that we are always already in the ield, feminist geographers, surprisingly, have had much less to say on the geographical tradition of ieldwork than feminist anthropologists (see Wolf 1996), the last major intervention being in The Professional Geographer in 1994 and the most recent a 2016 theme issue published by ACME. Feminist geographers, however, have made signiicant interventions into methodological debates in other parts of geography, in particular, the development of visual methodologies (Rose 2016), critical geographic information science (GIScience), and indigenous methodologies. Understandings of what is feminist about methodology are contested and have changed over time, paralleling the struggles of second and third wave feminisms. In the early 1970s, the political goals of the women’s movement in countries of the Global North were central to feminist research and this was when feminist scholars irst started to challenge processes of knowledge production. In particular, the dominant and androcentric positivist scientiic method was critiqued for its inability to address the experiences of women (Harding 1987). Work by feminists of color (Baca Zinn 1979; Hill Collins 1990) served as a corrective to the ethnocentricity of these critiques and brought the experiences of women of color into knowledge production. Poststructural feminists’ questioning of the uniied subject of women The International Encyclopedia of Geography. Edited by Douglas Richardson, Noel Castree, Michael F. Goodchild, Audrey Kobayashi, Weidong Liu, and Richard A. Marston. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg1149 FE M I N I ST ME THO DO L O G I E S and postcolonial feminists’ broadening of the remit of feminist knowledge production, to encompass not only women but all marginalized groups, further expanded the grounds of feminist methodologies. By the 1990s, an analytical approach of Intersectionality (Crenshaw 1993), which highlights the relational connectedness of race, class, gender, and sexuality in examining women’s lives, was widely adopted, but in becoming increasingly divorced from its roots in explaining the oppression of African American women, intersectionality is coming under criticism. And the important ethical and political questions raised by antiracist and indigenous perspectives on decolonizing methodologies (Smith 2012) have served to highlight questions around the ixity of power and the limits of feminist critiques of knowledge production from the predominantly white Western academy. Interrogating the feminist grounds of knowledge production thus depends on the analytical and political positioning of feminists, which currently range through liberal groups, mostly in the Global North, with interests in women’s positioning in relation to men, to radical groups, both in the Global South and North, whose interests in women form part of a broader concern with community and communities, to those whose focus on gender cannot be separated from interests in colonialism, race, and/or sexuality. The particular contributions made by feminist geographers to debates on feminist methodologies relate to the intersections of space, power, and knowledge. They can be seen as fourfold: spatializing existing feminist approaches to knowledge production; new spatialized contributions to feminist methodologies; engagements with methodological practices that speak to the valorizing of epistemology over praxis; and debates on methods, particularly in relation to quantitative versus qualitative approaches. 2 Spatializing existing feminist approaches to knowledge production Inserting notions of spatialities into work on the production of knowledge and of subjectivities, feminist geographers have drawn especially on the work of two feminist scholars, Sandra Harding and Donna Haraway. A feminist philosopher, Sandra Harding’s interest in how relations of power shape the production of knowledge in diferent contexts led her to argue for a self-relexive and collective approach to theorizing in which the viewpoints of all those involved in knowledge production processes must be acknowledged (Harding 1987). In this call, she went to the heart of a critique of hegemonic Western Enlightenment knowledge, built on the supposed bedrock of supposed complete “objectivity,” that is, that the application of objective rules of science leads to the “truth.” She came to call her approach “strong objectivity,” in contrast to the unrelective positivist approach based on the distanced and top-down viewpoints of only a few so-called experts. Moreover, Harding emphasizes a relationship that proponents of the scientiic method either see as irrelevant or seek to neutralize, that is, the centrality to strong objectivity of the relationship between the subject and object of inquiry, which highlights the importance of subjectivity. Harding (2004) also supported the epistemological stance of standpoint theory, in which Marxist feminist standpoint theorists, such as Nancy Hartsock, argue that women can produce more complete and less distorted knowledge than men because of their sex–class position. The universalism presumed by feminist standpoint theory was rejected by the poststructural feminist scholar Donna Haraway, however, who argues that neither women nor men can ever have total knowledge. She claims that the understanding of complete objectivity should be redeined and replaced by F EMINIS T METHOD OL OGIES that of “situated knowledge,” which acknowledges not only the partial and situated nature of all knowledge production but also its embodied nature, grounded in real bodies (Haraway 1988). Understandings of all knowledge as situated, embodied, and geographically placed have come to characterize feminist geographic knowledge production. Gillian Rose in her landmark book Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge (1993) was arguably the irst to develop a speciic feminist critique of the “transparent space” of masculinist geographic knowledge production in which claims to know, divorced from experiential and emotional knowledges, transcend the speciicities of the body and are equated with (violent) claims to space and territory. In contesting both what counts as legitimate geographic knowledge production and the masculinism of geographic discourses, Rose argues that “various forms of white, bourgeois, heterosexual masculinity have structured the way in which geography as a discipline claims to know space, place and landscape” (Rose 1993, 137). Drawing on the work of other feminists, her aim is to challenge the epistemic violence of the masculinist geographical desire to know by exploring feminist constructed spatialities that acknowledge and allow for diference. Utilizing the work of Teresa de Lauretis, who draws on the spatial imagery of “elsewhere” to describe “resistance to hegemonic identities of the subject of feminism” (Rose 1993, 139), and Adrienne Rich’s spatialized notion of a “politics of location” in which Rich explores her body as female, white, Jewish, and as a body within a nation, allows Rose to connect thinking through the body to scales both bodily and geopolitical, and to refuse the divide between metaphorical and real spaces. These spatialities form the basis of Rose’s notion of the subject of feminism occupying a space that is “multidimensional, contingent and shifting” and that is also “paradoxical,” in the sense that “spaces that would be mutually exclusive if charted on a two-dimensional map – center and margin, inside and outside – are occupied simultaneously” (1993, 140). Constituted through, but also working to destabilize, the same–other masculinist discourses of the master subject that limit what women are and can be, the subject of feminism is simultaneously in two places. Rose suggests a diferent territorial logic to the transparent space of dominant subjectivities, one in which geographic imaginaries are built on a refusal of territoriality (namely, the claiming of territory), thus allowing for diference. Indeed, feminist geographic imaginaries are infused with multiplicities of situated diferences that speak to class, race, sexuality, ablebodiedness, religion, and multiple other relations of power and relational understandings of subject formation. Within the discipline of geography it is situated racialized diferences that have most exercised issues of knowledge production within feminist geography (see Women in geography). The hegemonic discourse of whiteness speaks to epistemic exclusions that limit feminist geography’s ability both to speak across diferences and to occupy an emancipatory paradoxical space. Drawing on the work of the African American feminist scholar Patricia Hill Collins (1990), women of color in Anglo-American geography have taken their simultaneous occupation of center and margin as an “outsider within” position (Mullings 1999) to describe their paradoxical position within feminist geography, of being inside the same and outside as other same/other. Such paradoxical positions are characterized by their troubled relation to the hegemony of whiteness and the hard-won political spaces from which challenges to it are launched. 3 FE M I N I ST ME THO DO L O G I E S New contributions to feminist methodologies Attempts have been made not only to apply but also to add original contributions to feminist knowledge production, perhaps most clearly in Cindy Katz’s theoretical construct of “counter topography” (2001a; 2001b). Katz argues that Haraway’s concept of situated knowledge is often taken to refer to knowledge from a single site and a knowing subject, and, while situatedness may imply locale, it is most commonly constituted as a subject position – as Katz (2001a, 1230) puts it, “a space of zero dimensions,” located nowhere speciically. Situatedness, Katz suggests, implies location in abstract location to others, but not any speciic geography leading to a “politics of ‘sites’ and ‘spaces’ from which materiality is largely vacuated” (2001a, 1230), erasing the efect of speciic historical geographies and the diference that space makes. She also argues that situated knowledges are “simultaneously universal … and speciic. … The politics of extension and translation, from the site (point) to the global is too easily assumed in the insistence on situatedness, when, of course, that is what has to be explained” (Katz 2001a, 1231). Katz’s response to the inherent universality of situated knowledge has been to redeine it as the “local particularities of the relations of production and social reproduction” (2001a, 1230) and to employ the method of topography to show how social relations are far from abstract, but rather are “sedimented into space” (1229). Turning from the abstract topological representations of space inherent to Haraway’s formulations she gives ontological priority to topographical (territorial) space. Katz’s intention is to reinsert materiality into feminist theorizing through an insistence on studying the processes of global capitalism in particular places, each with its own speciicity but also with its connections to other 4 places. Drawing on the metaphorical idea of contour lines, which are lines of the same elevation that connect places at the same altitude, to describe how places are connected to each other, she imagines each contour line as representing a process, such as deskilling. Tracing these contour lines across places shows how they are materially connected to each other by the same processes. Countertopography, then, is a means of recognizing the historical and geographical speciicities of particular places while also inferring their analytic connections in relation to speciic material social practices. It is these material connections based on common interests, as opposed to shared identities, that serve as the basis for a feminist politics of connection. The intent underlying Katz’s notion of countertopographies is to suggest the importance of situated knowledge for a gendered oppositional politics that “works the ground” of and between multiple social actors in a range of geographical locations – crossing space, boundaries, and scales – in order to disrupt hegemonic understandings of capitalist processes. Katz eschews any suggestion of being able to predetermine how such politics may play out. She argues that, for politics to be efective in combatting globalizing capitalism, it is not simply a matter of building coalitions between places (vital as they are), but of building a politics sensitive to global processes while being grounded in the local. The work of imagining knowledge production, of bringing together the intellectual and the political through the mobilization of situated solidarities, has been practiced by a number of feminist geographers and is most comprehensively documented in the work in Uttar Pradesh, India, of the Sangtin Writers Collective and Richa Nagar (2006). They argue that praxis – the simultaneous and continual interplay between thought and action – through the interweaving F EMINIS T METHOD OL OGIES of theories and self-relexive practices of knowledge production via collaborative dialogues, provides a way to radically rethink existing approaches to knowledge production and issues of subalternity, voice, authorship, authority, and representation. Nagar and Lock-Swarr’s (2010, 2) work on critical transnational feminist praxis also speaks to the importance of recognizing the collaborative nature of knowledge production in developing feminist alliances across diference. Collaboration can be thought of then as a methodological tool that bridges the gap between (academic) feminists engaged in theorizing the complexities of knowledge production across borders and those (activists) concerned with imagining concrete ways to enact solidarities across nations, institutions, sociopolitical identiications, and economic categories and materialities. Valorizing epistemology over praxis Although praxis involving alliances across difference lies at the heart of feminist geographic knowledge production for many feminist geographers, such alliances have been marginalized, some would argue increasingly so, in the neoliberal academy, which values the fast creation of outputs best secured from short-term research engagements that limit the longer-term engagements that praxis usually requires (Peake and de Souza 2010). Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, it could be argued that feminist geographers’ interests in how the practices of research inluence knowledge production were dominated by analyses of how the researchers’ identity and experience shape the research process. Praxis, for example, is a term that rarely appears on the pages of the feminist geography journal Gender, Place & Culture (GPC). Instead, it has been a much narrower range of epistemological issues, namely, questions of Positionality, self-relexivity, representation, and accountability, that have come to occupy feminist geographers, threatening to obscure feminist knowledge production as a political act and divorcing it from questions of praxis. Positionality highlights how people, including researchers, see the world from diferent social, cultural, and geographical locations, with those dimensions of a researcher’s lived experience most commonly assumed to inluence the research process being her gender, race, class, and sexuality. Building on the work of Gillian Rose, feminist geographers have highlighted how the positionality of the researcher is itself both contextual and mercurial. Awareness of one’s positionality has been most commonly explored via the methodological tool of self-relexivity that Kim England (1994, 82) deines as “self-critical sympathetic introspection and the self-conscious analytical scrutiny of the self as researcher” (emphasis original) or being aware of the partiality of one’s own social location and knowledge. Indeed, relexivity is critical to the conduct of research; it induces self-discovery and can lead to insights and new hypotheses about research questions. Self-relexivity has also been critiqued, however, for its uncritical adoption, for being seen as an end in itself, as a relexive accounting of individually held beliefs that all too often turns to introspection divorced from the situated power relations within which the researcher operates, with the efect of recentering the concerns of the researcher. Moreover, as Nagar and Lock-Swarr (2010, 7) have pointed out, understandings of positionality “often assume transparent relexivity in ways that the very desire to ‘reveal’ the multiple, complex, and shifting positionality of the researcher freezes identities and social positions in space and time,” preventing analysis of the ways in which the embodied subjectivities of the researcher and the 5 FE M I N I ST ME THO DO L O G I E S researched are mutually constituted, interactive texts through which research-based knowledge production is produced and negotiated. Feminist researchers’ engagement with what can count as evidence of explanation and how we can know if it is “correct,” or the extent to which it holds in the social world, has focused on challenging the authority of the researcher’s voice, which positivist epistemology, in its dichotomous representation of object and subject as a prerequisite for objectivity, has presented as that of an omnipotent expert. Feminist geographers have sought to dismantle their authoritative positions, giving voice to participants by respectfully engaging them in the decision-making processes of the research, conducting research with as opposed to on participants, experimenting with writing styles, diversifying practices of dissemination, producing materials that speak to nonacademic as well as academic and policy audiences, and sharing research products, such as interview transcripts and publications, with participants. In doing so, feminist geographers are also engaging in the practice of accountability, in pushing boundaries of knowledge production, yet it remains unclear just how systematic or inluential such practices are; given the constraints of time and resources, they may not often be rigorously employed. And as Nagar and Lock-Swarr (2010) state, the limitation of these epistemological concerns is that, despite their progressive intentions, they do little, if anything, to dislodge the hierarchy of knowledge producers or to trouble the notion of the capacity of a researcher to “empower” research participants or the orientation of processes of praxis toward progressive humanization. Similarly, Smith (2012) urges researchers to take deliberate care to examine the efects of knowledge as a legitimating process, and to consider whose agendas and beliefs are legitimized in any research project. 6 Debates on methods Initially, methods in feminist geography were inluenced by the second wave women’s movement and quantitative research (most of its practitioners in the 1970s had come up through geography, at least at the tail end of the quantitative revolution). Feminist geographers documented the low numbers of women in the discipline, mapping their locations and documenting spatialized dimensions of their experiences. It was this early work that not only showed women as subjects of geographic research but also served to make women geographers into legitimate producers of knowledge (Thien 2009). By the mid-1980s, feminist geographers had moved on from such empirically oriented work to engaging further with theoretical perspectives and the masculinist underpinnings of the subields of human geography. In moving away from quantitative methods, feminist geographers were part of the general shift in research practices in human geography to qualitative analyses. The arguments feminist geographers developed against the use of quantitative techniques are well rehearsed. Implicitly masculinized, quantitative techniques were seen as incapable of relecting the complexity and richness of women’s lives, with many aspects of experience being diicult if not impossible to quantify, and as producing disembodied and abstracted knowledge that can only speak to predetermined categories that may neither “it” women’s experiences nor capture interrelationships. The most common objection has been cast at an epistemological level, namely the association of quantitative research with positivism. Positivist knowledge production is critiqued for its assumption of universality, what Donna Haraway (1988) refers to as the “god-trick,” the “view from nowhere.” It is another sleight of hand altogether, though, F EMINIS T METHOD OL OGIES that has relegated quantitative techniques to an association solely with positivism. Tainted by their association with positivism, quantitative methods today, such as statistical analyses of survey or secondary data and geocomputation and geovisualization based on geographical information systems (GIS), are not absent (Mattingly and Falconer Al-Hindi 1995) but they are much less likely to be employed by feminist geographers. The epistemological shifts in understanding gender – from its being a role to a power relation, to its identiication with identities with diferent meanings and spatialities, to being something processual, something that subjects do that is considered as embodied, performative, and spatialized – have methodological implications and have served to promote the use of qualitative methods. Such methods are considered more open to relationships, to encouraging engaged dialogue between researchers and communities, to what can count as data – perceptions, experiences, representations – and to what counts as ethically sound research practice. Indeed, a rich variety of qualitative methods are employed by feminist geographers, including interviews, focus groups, participatory action research (not to be confused with praxis), ethnographies, discourse analysis, archival analysis, visual techniques such as photography and video, plays, oral and life histories, and personal narratives. Notwithstanding the use of multiple qualitative methods, and triangulation between them, however, the overwhelming method of choice is the interview. A review of all the articles based on primary research (from 1993 onward) in GPC shows that by far the most frequent, and often only, method employed is that of the “in-depth” interview (a term that has become virtually meaningless as the meanings attached to it are rarely deined, and they may vary tremendously in length from 30 minutes to two- to three-day events) usually employed with small samples of under 50 participants. Within the pages of GPC, moreover, the overwhelming focus on qualitative methods and the virtual absence of quantitative research (less than 5% of all research articles) have allowed a vacuum to occur, legitimizing the absence of any reference to broader questions of the politics of knowledge production. Thus the extent to which debates by feminists in other disciplines about quantitative versus qualitative methods have been recognized as a red herring is still unclear, with many of the critiques of quantitative methods no longer being applicable when they can be deployed within a feminist research design. It is as if the recognition that the association of quantitative techniques with positivist science has been socially and historically constituted, and is moreover an ideological position that is neither necessary nor inevitable (Lawson 1995), has bypassed submissions to the journal. Since the early 2000s, a small but increasing number of contemporary feminist geographers have been using postpositivist geospatial technologies (GIS, Global Positioning System (GPS), remote sensing), and it is in these feminist applications that some of the most innovative possibilities of feminist methodologies are being explored. The work of the feminist geographer Mei-Po Kwan serves as an example of hybrid geographies combining methods and perspectives commonly thought to be incompatible, integrating spatial analytical methods with feminist theory. For example, in her study of the impact of anti-Muslim hate violence in the United States after 9/11, Kwan attempts to produce a counternarrative to recover the lived afective experiences of American Muslim women in Columbus, Ohio, in order to understand the short-term and long-term impact of their fear of being attacked while going about their daily activities and using public space, and 7 FE M I N I ST ME THO DO L O G I E S the strategies they have adopted to cope with it. In her mixed-methods study she utilized interviews, mental mappings, digitally recorded oral histories, and GIS-based visual narratives using ArcScene (the 3-D geovisualization environment of ArcGIS). The video she produced is based on the oral history of a Muslim woman in Columbus, Ohio, which not only shows the routes and the spaces her body moved through, but also tells her story through the images and her oral narrative as she recalls what happened to her life and how she negotiated the hostile urban spaces after 9/11. The video shows what she saw and experienced from her personal point of view (i.e., from the position of a driver who was traveling along various roads in the study area). It is a powerful form of individualized storytelling based on her personal movements, memories, feelings, and emotions. (Kwan 2007, 27) The woman herself is absent from the video, unable to be watched by spectators; taking the viewpoint instead of the protagonist, the videographer serves to contest the objectifying gaze of dominant practices of geovisualization. Kwan argues that such alternative uses of geospatial technology not only have relevance for a world characterized by natural disasters, global-level conlicts, and wars through, for example, community-based mapping and progressive uses of Big data, but also to contest the dominant uses of geospatial technologies to combat their usage for violent and oppressive ends. She argues that a moral use of these methods requires that geospatial practices are embodied and attentive to emotions, claiming that feminist geospatial technologies (GT) practitioners “can appropriate the power of GT, contest the dominant uses of these technologies, and reconigure the dominant visual practices to counter their objectifying vision … and explore the possibilities of performing (practicing) GT as resistance” (Kwan 8 2007, 23–24). Kwan’s work shows how quantitative data and methods can be powerful ways of initiating progressive social and political change, revealing not only broad but also micro-contours of diference and similarity and speaking to policy. The reality, however, is that many feminist geographers cannot take up these challenges because they lack training in quantitative analysis, which reduces the scope of the research questions that many feminist geographers can ask. Whither feminist methodology? While feminist methodology served initially to critique the epistemological claims of masculinist knowledge production and bring into view the female subject and embodied knowledges, currently it is the substitution of the use of qualitative methods for discussions about feminist methodologies, a restricted engagement with praxis and its replacement by questions of epistemology, and the reduction of these questions predominantly to those of relexivity and positionality that have come to deine the parameters of debates about the current production of feminist knowledge in geography. These are narrow parameters and we need to be wary of the limitations they place on feminist geographical knowledge production and on geographical imaginaries. For feminist geographers concerned with the intellectual and political practices of knowledge production – what constitutes knowledge, what knowledge is considered legitimate, and how it is produced – there is a need to move on from the dead-end debate about quantitative versus qualitative methods, which serves only to replicate dualist thinking; to ask broader methodological questions that include a place for praxis and a recognition of the need for much greater lexibility over suitable methods, including tolerance F EMINIS T METHOD OL OGIES and respect for a variety of methods; and to understand that no method is inherently feminist and that all data are representations. Furthermore, with big data rapidly gaining traction and with some of the most exciting methodological innovations in geography coming from geospatial techniques, a monistic take on qualitative methods by far too many feminist geographers runs the risk of reducing the epistemic authority of feminist work and the dynamism of the ield. Clearly, it remains critical for feminist researchers to acknowledge and continually to problematize power relations in research. SEE ALSO: Afect; Bodies and embodiment; Critical spatial thinking; Emotional geographies; Feminist geography; Fieldwork in human geography; Focus groups; Gender; Geographic information science; Intersectionality; Interviews; Participatory action research; Positionality; Power; Qualitative data; Quantitative methodologies; Relexivity; Representation; Subjectivity References Baca Zinn, M. 1979. “Field Research in Minority Communities: Ethical, Methodological, and Political Observations by an Insider.” Social Problems, 27(2): 209–219. Crenshaw, K. 1993. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review, 43(6): 1241–1299. DOI:10.2307/1229039. England, Kim. 1994. “Getting Personal: Relexivity, Positionality and Feminist Research.” Professional Geographer, 46(1): 80–89. DOI:10.1111/j. 0033-0124.1994.00080.x. Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies, 14(3): 575–599. Harding, Sandra, ed. 1987. Feminism and Methodology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Harding, Sandra. 2004. “Introduction: Standpoint Theory as a Site of Political, Philosophic and Scientiic Debate.” In The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies, edited by Sandra Harding, 1–16. New York: Routledge. Hill Collins, P. 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Katz, Cindy. 2001a. “On the Grounds of Globalization: A Topography for Feminist Political Engagement.” Signs, 26(4): 1213–1234. Katz, Cindy. 2001b. “Vagabond Capitalism and the Necessity of Social Reproduction.” Antipode, 33(4): 709–728. DOI:10.1111/1467-8330.00207. Kwan, Mei-Po. 2007. “Afecting Geospatial Technologies: Toward a Feminist Politics of Emotion.” Professional Geographer, 59(1): 22–34. DOI:10. 1111/j.1467-9272.2007.00588.x. Lawson, Victoria. 1995. “The Politics of Diference: Examining the Quantitative/Qualitative Dualism in Post-structuralist Feminist Research.” Professional Geographer, 47(4): 449–457. Mattingly, Doreen J., and Karen Falconer Al-Hindi. 1995. “Should Women Count? A Context for the Debate.” Professional Geographer, 47(4): 427–435. DOI:10.1111/j.0033-0124.1995.427_h.x. Moss, Pamela. 2002. Feminist Geography in Practice: Research and Methods. Oxford: Blackwell. Mullings, Beverley. 1999. “Insider or Outsider, Both or Neither: Some Dilemmas of Interviewing in a Cross-Cultural Setting.” Geoforum, 30(4): 337–350. DOI:10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00025-1. Oakley, Ann. 1981. “Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms.” In Doing Feminist Research, edited by H. Roberts, 30–61. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Peake, Linda, and Karen de Souza. 2010. “Feminist Academic and Activist Praxis in Service of the Transnational.” In Critical Transnational Feminist Praxis, edited by R. Nagar and A. Swarr, 206–218. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rangahau. n.d. “Methodology.” http://www. rangahau.co.nz/methodology/ (accessed May 20, 2016). 9 FE M I N I ST ME THO DO L O G I E S Rose, Gillian. 1993. Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rose, Gillian. 2016. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Interpreting Visual Materials, 4th edn. London: SAGE. Sangtin Writers Collective and Richa Nagar. 2006. Playing with Fire: Feminist Thought and Activism through Seven Lives in India. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Smith, Dorothy E. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 10 Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, 2nd edn. London: Zed Books. Thien, Deborah. 2009. “Feminist Methodologies.” In The International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, edited by R. Kitchin and N. Thrift, 71–78. London: Elsevier. Wolf, Diana L. 1996. “Situating Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork.” In Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork, edited by D.L. Wolf, 1–55. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.